





































STATE OF NEW YORK 


REPORT 


OF THE 


Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly 

OF THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 


Appointed to Investigate 

PRIMARY AND ELECTION LAWS OF 
THIS AND OTHER STATES 


TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE FEBRUARY 21, 1910 


ALBANY 

J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 
1910 










STATE OF NEW YORK 


ii 


REPORT 

OF THE 


rfcZ 


Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly 

OF THE 


STATE OF NEW YORK 


Appointed to Investigate 

PRIMARY AND ELECTION LAWS OF 
THIS AND OTHER STATES 


TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE FEBRUARY 21, 1910 


ALBANY 

J. B. LYON COMPANY, PHINTEBS 







































v 























n 'nr T5* 
JAM 23 1912 



State of New York 


<% 

vi 


No. 26 . 


IN SENATE 


February 21, 1910. 


REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND 
ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPOINTED 
TO INVESTIGATE PRIMARY AND ELECTION LAWS OF 
THIS AND OTHER STATES. 


To the Senate and Assembly: 

The Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly, appointed 
pursuant to concurrent resolution adopted April 29, 1909, sub¬ 
mits the following report: 

The resolution directed the Committee— 

“ to examine into, consider and investigate the operation, 
efficiency and results of the so-called direct primary law for 



the nomination of candidates for elective offices in other 
States of the United States as well as the laws of this State 


regulating the conduct of party primaries and conventions, 
and, generally, into all matters pertaining to the election 
laws, for the purpose of determining what amendments, if 
any, to the present laws or laws governing primaries and 
elections are needed, the same, or what other further legis¬ 
lation may he needed upon the subject, and to report its rec¬ 
ommendations to the Legislature on or before the first day 
of February, nineteen hundred and ten, together with proper 
and necessary bills to carry into effect its recommendations 
if such recommendations require it;” 

The Committee organized June 11, 1909, and employed Walter 
H. Knapp, as counsel, Henry Seilheimer as secretary to the Com¬ 
mittee, and Henry C. Lammert as official stenographer. The reso- 


Note. —Reference is made to page of stenographer’s record. 








4 


*4 

lution instructed the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate to attend to 
such duties as might be required of him by the Committee. 

The public hearings were begun at the State House in the city 
of Boston, July 12, 1909, and similar hearings were conducted 
during the summer and fall in the cities of Philadelphia and 
Harrisburg and Pittsburg, in the State of Pennsylvania; in the 
city of Topeka, Kansas; Des Moines, Iowa; St. Paul, Minnesota; 
Madison and Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin; Chicago, Illi¬ 
nois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Detroit, Michigan. In this State, 
hearings were had in Buffalo, Albion, Orleans county, and in the 
city of Hew York. 

Every courtesy and opportunity for the examination of records 
was extended to the Committee in other States, and excellent 
accommodations in the capitol buildings, city halls and county 
buildings, were given to the Committee without charge in the 
several cities visited. It will be understood that outside of the 
State of Hew York, the Committee had no jurisdiction to com¬ 
pel the attendance of witnesses by subpoena and had to rely upon 
the voluntary appearance and testimony of the persons interested 
in the subject-matter of the inquiry. 

It is proper to say, however, that in every place visited by the 
Committee, men of the highest character, those holding high official 
positions, as well as men having held no political office, but stand¬ 
ing high in the community in business and professional lines, 
were willing and helpful witnesses before the Committee. 

Senator McCarren was able to attend only the hearings in Bos¬ 
ton and Philadelphia, and died before the public sessions of 
the Committee were completed in Hew York State. 

The Committee did not deem it wise or necessary to visit the 
Pacific Coast States where primary election laws have been 
enacted, but obtained some evidence of the working of the direct 
nomination systems in some of these states by correspondence and 
from the statements of witnesses, who have visited these localities 
and to some extent observed the working of their primary laws. 

Although the resolution authorized the Committee, in general 
terms, to investigate election laws of other states, the work of the 
Committee was confined almost entirely to the investigation of 
nominating systems, both representative and direct, and to the 
results obtained in the actual operation of laws intended to control 
the methods of nomination of candidates for public elective office. 


5 


The report will attempt to summarize the testimony received 
by the Committee in each of the states visited, together with a 
brief digest of the laws of each state, in which there has been any 
legislative enactment attempting to control the nomination of 
candidates for public office by political parties. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. Herbert H. Boynton, Deputy Secretary of the Common¬ 
wealth, for many years, whose evidence appears at pages 5-70 of 
the record, gave to the Committee a detailed statement of the sub¬ 
stance of the primary laws in operation in this state. There is 
no state-wide mandatory primary law, but, except in the city of 
Boston, the form of the primary and whether candidates shall he 
nominated by direct vote, is determined by a referendum vote of 
the electors of particular districts and by special statutory enact¬ 
ment. 

It is to be noted that among the other usual qualifications of 
voters, the law requires that every male citizen of twenty-one 
years of age or upwards, not being a pauper or person under 
guardianship, must be able to read the Constitution of the Com¬ 
monwealth in the English language and write his name. 

The official ballot is in the form of what is known as the “ Aus¬ 
tralian ballot,” the candidates of all parties being grouped in 
alphabetical order under the designation of the office, without 
party emblem or party column, and in this connection, we have 
appended to this report a tabulation of the number of registered 
voters at the state elections in 1907 and 1908, with the percen¬ 
tage of the vote cast in each of these years, which will be interest¬ 
ing to compare with similar conditions in Hew York State. 

It will also be noted that judges of all courts of record are 
appointed and do not come under the elective system. Members 
of the School Committee in Boston are also especially exempted 
from the operation of a direct nomination system. In Boston, 
the election department is under the charge of a Board of Elec¬ 
tion Commissioners, consisting of four citizens appointed by the 
Mayor without confirmation of the Board of Aldermen, and said 
Board constitutes the “ Boston Ballot Law Commission ” and has 
general charge of all matters relating to registration of voters, 
primaries and elections. Personal registration is not required, 


except in the year 1908 and every twelfth year thereafter, but 
the voting list is corrected each year by a system of police census, 
except that new voters may appear before the Board and qualify 
and register. 

The general law controlling all caucuses in using official bal¬ 
lots provides that all caucuses of political parties for the choice 
of delegates to political conventions, which nominate candidates 
to be voted for at the annual state election and for the nomination 
of candidates to be voted for at such election, shall be held through¬ 
out the Commonwealth on a day designated by the State Com¬ 
mittee of the political party, for which said caucuses are held, and 
no two parties shall hold caucuses on the same day. The law also 
provides for publication of notices of such caucuses and for the 
method of conducting the same, and prohibits persons who are 
members of one political party from voting in that of another, 
but upon challenge, he may take an oath in which he asserts his 
legal right to vote in the caucus of his choice. 

In such caucuses, the ballot is usually furnished by the political 
parties or candidates. 

There is also a provision of law, known as the “ Boston Act,” 
which has been adopted by the Republican party in eighteen of 
the cities and towns of the State, and by the Democratic party in 
seven. This act provides for an official ballot, and any city or 
town committee is required at the written request of fifty voters, 
members of its party, to call caucuses of said party to determine 
by ballot whether the provisions of law for the use of official bal¬ 
lots shall be adopted. If the official ballot is adopted, the political 
committees may still fix the time for holding the caucuses, but 
no two political parties shall hold their caucuses on same day. 
After one year’s trial, a political party, which has accepted said 
special provisions of law, may revoke the same, and this has been 
done in several instances. 

What is known as the “ Luce Law,” providing for joint cau¬ 
cuses, or primaries of political and municipal parties, was manda¬ 
tory in Boston, and has been adopted by twelve of the cities and 
towns of the State, mostly located in the vicinity of Boston. The 
“ joint caucus or primary ” is conducted substantially the same 
as an election, except that the party official ballots are designated 
by different colored paper, and each voter, upon calling for a bal- 


7 


lot, must designate the party of his choice and by such designation 
becomes enrolled as a member of that party, and cannot receive a 
ballot of another party, unless, at least ninety days before the 
primary, he shall have applied to the Election Commissioners to 
change his party enrollment, or takes an oath at the primary to the 
effect that the election officers have made a mistake in enrolling 
him at the last primary. This method of enrollment seems to he 
quite successful in preventing the members of one party from 
voting the ballot of another, but of course absolutely prevents so- 
called “ independents ” from taking any part in the nomination of 
party candidates. 

Any city or town, which has adopted the provisions of law for 
nominating at primaries, can adopt or abandon this system by 
referendum vote. In thirteen out of the forty Senatorial districts, 
candidates for Senator are nominated by the direct plan, though 
all do not use the official ballot; in one hundred and one out of 
one hundred and seventy-three representative (Assembly) dis¬ 
tricts, the direct nomination plan is in use; and in three out of 
fourteen Congressional districts; and one Councilor out of eight 
Councilor districts is nominated in this way. 

Delegates to State and county conventions are elected at the 
same primaries upon the official ballot, and candidates for muni¬ 
cipal offices in Boston, prior to the adoption of the new charter, 
and in other cities where adopted as before stated, are nominated 
by direct vote. Without a special legislative act, candidates for 
office cannot be nominated at the primaries by direct vote. A 
large number of bills were introduced at the last session of the 
Legislature and none of them were adopted, except one affecting 
Essex county, which became a law without the Governor’s signa¬ 
ture. There are no direct nominations for any county officers 
within the State. 

The direct nominations plan for municipal officers has been in 
operation in the city of Boston since about the year 1901. 

In 1907, a commission to consider the financial conditions of 
the city of Boston was authorized by Chapter 481 of the Acts of 
1907 and Chapter 562 of the Acts of 1908. This commission 
consisted of seven members appointed by the Governor of the 
State and the mayor of the city of Boston, upon the recommenda- 
tioijL of various commercial and real estate interests of the city. 


8 


Five Democrats and two Republicans were appointed to the com¬ 
mission. They served without pay and were men of the very 
highest character. Many of them practically gave up their busi¬ 
ness for a year and a half while working on the commission. All 
the members of the board acted with the greatest public spirit 
and disinterestedness, and their recommendations were accepted 
by the Massachusetts Legislature, which was Republican, and by 
a popular vote in Boston, a Democratic city. (See testimony of 
Charles W. Eliot, former president of Harvard University, pages 
3226-3246). 

The report was signed by six members of the commission as 
follows: Nathan Matthews, Chairman; George U. Crocker, 

George A. 0. Ernst, John F. Moors, Randall G. Morris, and John 
A. Sullivan. Mr. Matthews was Mayor of the city of Boston for 
four terms, and at the last Harvard commencement was given the 
degree of LL.D. for distinguished services to the city and State 
upon this Finance Commission. Mr. John A. Sullivan was a 
Member of Congress and is the present chairman of the new 
Finance Commission of the city of Boston. Mr. George O. A. 
Ernst is a member of the School Board; Mr. George U. Crocker 
was the Deputy State Treasurer for some years. 

The Committee made an exhaustive study of political conditions 
in the city, and especially of the method of nominating candidates 
for Mayor, Aldermen and Members of the Common Council; these 
candidates had been selected for about eight years by a system of 
direct nominations, with an official ballot and joint caucus and 
party enrollment of voters, similar to direct nomination plans of 
many other localities. 

The experience of Boston and this method of nominations can 
be best expressed by quoting here from the report of said Boston 
Finance Commission, made in January, 1909, found on pages 
22-24 of said report: 

“ While the present system of nominating the candidates 
for mayor and city council at primary elections was adopted 
to correct certain abuses incident to the caucus and delegate 
convention, it has given rise to new evils more serious still; 
and it operates to make the nomination and election of repre¬ 
sentative citizens to the elective offices of the city govern¬ 
ment more difficult than under the former system. 


9 


“ Whatever force there may be in the argument that party 
responsibility is a guarantee of good behaviour and a desirable 
check on individual misconduct, this argument presupposes 
the existence of a true political party with principles, organ¬ 
ization and discipline. 

“ The direct primary system was not intended to abolish 
partisanship in municipal government; but in its practical 
working, there is no longer the partisanship of a great organ¬ 
ization bound, theoretically at least, by party principles, and 
having some regard for its political responsibilities in the 
State at large. It is a partisanship of ward organizations, 
calling themselves Republican or Democratic as the case 
may be, but representing no municipal policies capable of 
formulation. 

“ Under the convention system it is possible for a party to 
nominate or endorse a candidate from the other party if it so 
desires. This has frequently been done in the case of the 
school committee and the county officers, and once in the case 
of the mayor. Under the present primary system this oppor¬ 
tunity disappears entirely. Uo Republican can be nominated 
in the Democratic primaries and no Democrat can be nomi¬ 
nated in the Republican primaries. Voters who would like to 
see their party endorse a strong member of the opposite party 
for a municipal election rather than put up a weak candidate 
of their own are powerless to accomplish this result. 

“ Our present electoral machinery is wholly unsuited to 
the requirements of successful municipal government through 
popular suffrage. Instead of bringing the choice of candi¬ 
dates nearer to the people it has enacted well-nigh insur¬ 
mountable barriers between the individual voter and the free 
selection to which he is entitled, and which he must have 
before he can discharge his duty as a citizen. It has made it 
artificially difficult to secure good nominations; it has de¬ 
barred the best and most representative citizens from partici¬ 
pation in the government; it has increased the power of 
money in elections; it has practically handed the city over to 
the ward politicians. It tends to create bad government, no 
matter how strongly the people may desire good government; 
and to discredit the capacity of the people when congregated 
together in great cities to administer their municipal affairs. 


10 


“ The effect of the present system of nominations upon the 
mayoralty elections has been particularly unfortunate, and so 
generally deplored as to require little comment in this report. 

“ Under the direct primary system a strong, honest and 
popular man is theoretically able to secure a nomination 
against the opposition of the party organization or “ ma¬ 
chine;” but practically he can do it only by entering into a 
personal contest with the ward politicians in every district. 
Desirable men shrink from this sort of a contest. A party 
nomination for mayor in this city is not so likely to be a 
choice by the party of its best candidate, as a personal contest 
between two or more active seekers for the office. 

“ The possession of concurrent power over appropriations 
and loans, aggregating $25,000,000 a year, and over the 
municipal ordinances for a population of 600,000 people, 
would seem to furnish sufficient honor to make a seat in the 
city council an object of legitimate ambition, and to cause 
whatever sacrifice of time may be involved to be looked upon 
as a civic duty. Membership in the city council, however, is 
quite generally regarded as a discredit rather than an honor; 
and it is difficult to induce representative men to become can¬ 
didates for either branch.” 

In accordance with the recommendations of this Finance Com¬ 
mission, the Legislature at the session of 1909, adopted for the city 
of Boston a new charter, which abolished the direct nominations 
system for all city officers and provided for a referendum vote 
upon two plans, first, whether such officers should be nominated 
by delegate and convention system; and second, whether they 
should be nominated by petition, signed by 5,000 voters. 

The commission recommended the latter plan and the abolition 
of the primary, and this was subsequently adopted by popular 
vote. It is a matter of common knowledge, which was also testi¬ 
fied to by President Eliot, that at least ten candidates for the 
office of mayor undertook to get the required 5,000 signatures, 
and that one candidate, former Mayor FitzGerald, secured about 
14,000 signatures early in the contest, and as a voter can sign but 
one petition, this naturally made it more difficult for other candi- 


11 


dates to secure signatures. The contest for signatures was very 
active and four candidates only secured the necessary 5,000. The 
election, which has just taken place, resulted in the choice of Mr. 
FitzGerald, the former Democratic mayor, whose administration 
was so severely condemned in the report of the Finance Commis¬ 
sion. The new charter reduces the common council to a small 
number and attempts to do away with party control in the admin¬ 
istration of the affairs of the city, and to conduct its business upon 
the lines of what is known as the Des Moines system. 

The experiment is the most interesting and important one under¬ 
taken in this country for the administration of the affairs of a 
city of metropolitan size. 

During the sessions of the Committee in Boston, the commission 
had the benefit of the views and experience of the following wit¬ 
nesses, who took a position more or less favorable to some system 
of direct nominations, and in some instances to the extension of 
the system in operation in Massachusetts to include all elective 
officers, including state officers and the abolition of all conventions, 
except possibly conventions for the nomination of school officers: 

Bobert Luce, author of a law enacted in 1902 concerning direct 
nominations, and the so-called Luce Law of 1903, providing for a 
joint caucus. Mr. Luce is regarded as the best authority in the 
city of Boston upon the subject of direct nominations, and not 
being present in the city at the time of the hearing, communicated 
with the Committee by letter, found at page 98 of the record. 
Mr. Luce concludes that the fear because of the multiplicity of 
candidates, which was predicted, has not been realized; that the 
scope of the choice between candidates may have been somewhat 
enlarged but not harmfully, but there has been no such increase of 
candidacies as was feared; that the choice by plurality vote has 
not been objectionable, and that there is no practical justification 
for the elaborate second and third primary complications that pre¬ 
vail in the south; that the system does not destroy the influence of 
party leaders, but keeps it within legitimate bounds, and that party 
members take more interest and become more earnest and loyal 
party workers than under the old system; that there is less bolting 
of candidates under this system and a greater increase in partici¬ 
pation in the nominating process. ILe also contends that the 


12 


system has broken down what is known as the “ rotation in office 
theory ” by retaining useful servants in official positions as long 
as they will serve; that the State or municipality also gains by 
lessening “ old locality claims;” in other words, there is no oppor¬ 
tunity under this system for the distribution of candidates accord¬ 
ing to locality within the district; that the most serious objection 
to the system is its expense, but that direct nominations lessen the 
expense wherever the candidates would in any case have appealed 
to the voters, and it increases the expense where if the convention 
plan prevailed there would be no prior canvassing of the mass of 
voters, and Mr. Luce adds: “ For this reason, I have come to the 
personal conclusion that the best system is one whereunder nomina¬ 
tion may be made by convention, if there is no manifest occasion 
for a general canvas, something as is the case in an English par¬ 
liamentary election, where a poll is taken only after two or more 
candidates have presented themselves. Of course, precisely that 
system could not apply here, but it is quite possible to provide that 
there shall be direct nomination wherever an appreciable number 
of voters petition for it.” 

Mr. Luce does not agree with the contention that direct nomina¬ 
tion as far as applied in the State of Massachusetts is adapted only 
to districts territorially compact and says that “ the fact is that 
populations have now so grown that no candidate is personally 
known to more than a small fraction of the voters, whether in 
city or country. Choice is made on the strength of the judgment 
of a comparatively few men, who advise others, directly or indi¬ 
rectly.” lie states that “ the all important question — 1 Does 
direct nomination get better candidates V — cannot be answered 
statistically and any answer is but individual opinion.” 

Mr. William F. Murray, a resident of Charlestown, and repre¬ 
sentative in the years 1907 and 1908, advocated the extension of 
the direct nomination system, and gave an interesting account of 
his own experiences as a young man in politics. He claimed that 
many bright young men had been able to get into politics, both 
city and municipal, in and about Boston, by means of the direct 
nomination system, but stated that the expense to such candidates, 
who might be opposed by the so-called organization, would be con¬ 
siderable. Candidates for the State Senate, under this system, 


13 


usually expended from two to three thousand dollars to secure the 
nomination to an office, which pays a salary of $750. It seems to 
be generally conceded that better and more independent members 
of the school committee of the city of Boston can be selected by the 
convention system than by any system of direct nominations. And 
for this reason, the school committee is excepted from the opera¬ 
tion of the joint caucus and the plan of nominations by the direct 
system. While it might be possible for a member of one party to 
be nominated by the ticket of another, Mr. Murray said that he 
had never known such a thing to happen. The fact also that only 
a small percentage of the minority party’s enrolled voters partici¬ 
pated in the primaries, while a much larger number of the ma¬ 
jority party’s voters came out to the primary, in cases of contest, 
either for the nomination or for party factional control, was 
brought out. At the State primary in 1908, the Democratic votes 
cast for a representative in Congress in the Ninth District were 
14,269. Republican votes cast at the same primary in the same 
district, 1,846. At the election which followed, the Democratic 
candidate received 13,729 and the Republican candidate received 
4,989. 

This establishes the fact that in a Congressional district, which 
has a large Democratic majority, there were 540 more Democratic 
votes cast at the primary than were cast at the election, while there 
were 3,093 more votes cast for the Republican candidate at the 
election than at the primary, and this notwithstanding the fact 
that there was an apparent contest at the primary between Republi¬ 
can candidates. These figures show that only about 36 per cent, 
of the Republicans, who voted at the election, voted at the primary. 
Ordinarily a much smaller percentage of the enrolled vote of the 
minority party participates in the primary, as will be disclosed by 
the records of other states hereinafter set forth. 

In the third ward of this same district, Democratic primary 
votes to the number of 1,876 were cast for a representative in Con¬ 
gress, while at the election only 1,661 votes were cast for the suc¬ 
cessful nominee, that is to say, 215 more Democratic votes were 
cast at the primary than at the election. It is claimed that many 
of those who voted the Democratic primary ticket were in reality 
Republicans and participated in the Democratic primary because 


14 


of the warm contest for the nomination. In each instance the so- 
called organization candidate won out. 

Mr. David B. Shaw, a Democratic member of the Legislature 
from the same Charlestown district, testified favoring direct nom¬ 
inations systems along the same lines advocated by Mr. Murray. 
He also stated that it was the invariable rule in the Common¬ 
wealth, where primary elections exist, that the majority party 
become enrolled and participate in the primary, while but few of 
the minority party, being the Republican party in the city of 
Boston, become enrolled and take any interest in the primary 
(page 238). 

Mr. Shaw was very bitter in his attacks upon the new charter 
of the city of Boston and characterized it as a “ nefarious act ” 
(page 244). 

In the contest for Congress in the Hinth District, to which 
reference has been made, he admitted that Kelleher, who received 
the plurality, was favored by most of the Democratic Ward Com¬ 
mittee, and that he did not know of a case since the direct system 
was in vogue in that Congressional district, when a man has been 
nominated for Congress, who did not have the support of the organ¬ 
ization. 

Mr. Shaw thought that the results of the direct system had been 
so good that it would be well for the community to extend it to the 
School Committee, and that it would secure fully as good, if not 
better, results, so far as the discipline and management of the 
schools are concerned. That it should also be extended to county 
officers, but he did not believe in extending it to the Governor 
(page 258) ; for the reason that, as he stated, “ The Common¬ 
wealth, like the national government, is dependent a great deal on 
party for its political life;” that formulation of party platforms 
and principles can only be made at conventions. While he con¬ 
tended for the nomination of United States Senators by the direct 
method, he did not believe in the nomination of Governor in this 
way. He said of the Finance Commission, whose report has been 
referred to, that “A more condemned body never existed in this 
city” (page 266) ; and after a bitter attack upon them and their 
report, stated to the chairman of this Commission (page 276) 
(i You do not want to take too much stock in the testimony given 


by Mr. Matthews and Mr. Sullivan.” He characterized these 
gentlemen as “ disappointed politicians ” and himself as an “ active 
politician” (page 266). 

The Commission also had the benefit of the views of Hon. James 
IT. Vahey, former State Senator, and the Democratic nominee 
for Governor in 1908 and 1909 against the present Governor, 
Eben S. Draper. 

Mr. Yahey supposed that “ direct nominations ” was an issue 
in his campaign in 1908, but was mistaken. He said that he 
should see that it was made an issue in 1909, and that he should 
make it as much a prominent issue as possible, so that it might 
to some degree reflect the sentiment of the people of Massachusetts 
upon this subject. It is doubtful if the issue was made very 
prominent during the campaign, but Mr. Yahey was unsuccessful 
at the election, though by a reduced majority against him. lie 
gave it as his theory of popular government that so far as State, 
local and smaller municipal divisions of the State, are concerned, 
the question of party principle is not involved; that in State and 
municipal affairs party designations do not cut any figure (page 
317). He does not think it is necessary in the government of a 
State to have any party responsibility at all for the conduct of 
the government, but prefers to rely solely upon the individual. 
In State and municipal affairs, he does not regard it as necessary 
to have direct nominations of party men, and does not see any 
reason for party nominations in State local affairs. He declared 
his belief in what is known as the Initiative, the Referendum, and 
the Recall (page 318), while strongly advocating the extension of 
direct nomination systems to all elective offices within the State, 
including Governor and United States Senators. 

He said that complaint had been made that members of the 
minority party, particularly Republicans in the Charlestown dis¬ 
trict, participated in the primaries of the majority party. Where 
direct nominations are permitted and the party caucuses are held 
separately, the voter is not required to make any declaration of 
his party affiliation, unless challenged, and Mr. Yahey prefers the 
joint caucus, such as is provided in the Luce Law. He believed 
that the School Committee could be selected as well under the 
direct nomination system as by the convention, as is now pro- 


16 


vided by law; and charged the prevention of the extension of the 
direct nomination system in the State to the powerful influence 
of the United States Senator, who does not wish the Senatorship 
to he submitted to popular vote. When asked by a member of 
the committee as to whether he would regard that feature of the 
law proposed to be enacted in the State of Hew York, which pro¬ 
vides for the suggestions of candidates at the primary by party 
committees and giving them preferential position, he stated that 
he would not regard that provision of the proposed law as a direct 
nomination feature, and believed that the preferential position, 
coupled with the fact that the candidate suggested by the commit¬ 
tee would have the support of the organization, would give such 
candidate a considerable advantage over the independent opposing 
candidate. 

Hon. Arthur Harrington, a former member of the House and 
Senate, gave the committee some of his personal experiences as 
a candidate under the direct nomination system. 

Mr. Harrington claimed to have been defeated by this system 
where he would have been nominated by the convention, by reason 
of the fact that the organization, which was opposed to him, in¬ 
duced a third candidate to stand for the nomination. He also 
stated that the expense ordinarily was about three times as great 
under the direct system as under the convention system, “ the larger 
the district, the greater the expense, because a greater number of 
people have to be reached with literature, and a greater number 
of halls have to be hired; and if you have to have workers at the 
polls a greater number of workers at the polls have to be paid and 
carriages, and in every way, according to the size of the district, 
of course, the expense is larger, but relatively it is about three 
times as great; that has been my experience in the last ten years ” 
(page 337). 

He says that there is no doubt that there is practice in the major¬ 
ity party on the part of candidates of inducing others to become 
candidates so as to split up the vote, and sometimes they put in 
the name of another person, who has a name similar to the person, 
whom they wish to oppose. As an instance, he mentioned the fact 
that one John L. Kelly was running for alderman and his oppon¬ 
ent put in the name of John E. Kelly as a candidate. 


17 


For a time under the law, the candidate’s name appeared upon 
the* ticket in the order of filing, and there was great disorder and 
confusion at the place of filing, by candidates, who desired to get 
their names first on the ticket and obtain whatever advantage there 
might he from that position; now, however, they are put on in 
alphabetical order, except in the case of groups of delegates and 
they are put on in the order of filing, and the organizations desir¬ 
ing to get their delegates on first will hire rooms in the vicinity 
of the filing place, in order to he on hand when the nominations 
can be filed; there is no appeal from the decision of the local regis¬ 
trar, who marks the time of filing to suit himself. Mr. Harring¬ 
ton contended, however, that direct nominations worked well where 
there was a homogeneous, compact population, but in rural dis¬ 
tricts, it did not work well, and in all the districts where they still 
retain the “ town meeting,” they have invariably refused to ask 
for direct nominations for members of the House and Senate, for 
the reason that a large town in some district would always control 
the nomination and the rural district could not secure a candidate 
in the general court or in the Senate (page 341). He contended 
that the “ machine candidates ” will win in the city of Boston 
under the direct nomination plan ninety-nine times out of a hun¬ 
dred, and that the joint primary increases the majority party and 
decreases the minority party, because of the fact that the minority 
members will enroll in the majority party for primary purposes 
and ultimately become attached to such organization. Voters will 
enroll with the majority party because of patronage, which they 
may get, or appointments which they may receive from the major¬ 
ity party managers, knowing that if they were not enrolled in such 
party, it would be hopeless for them to ask for any appointment 
or patronage from the party in control. This, he claims, is not 
in any respect due to the direct nomination feature of the law, 
but the Enrollment Law required by the joint caucus. Mr. Har¬ 
rington said that in a Senatorial district comprising the half of 
a city, which half contained probably one hundred thousand people, 
and also the half of a county containing nine or ten towns, a direct 
primary system would be absolutely impracticable. He cited the 
case of Charlestown, Cambridge and East Boston, which are in 
the same district; for twenty years Charlestown has had the Sena- 


18 


tor and the other two cities have never had a Senator, Charles¬ 
town being the strongest Democratic city in the State and being 
able for this reason to outvote the rest of the district. 

Mr. Harrington contended that all administrative officers such 
as School Committees, Attorney-General, City Treasurer, should 
be nominated by the convention, upon the theory that he would 
thus be more removed from politics than if nominated by the direct 
system. 

Mr. Richard L. Gay, who has compiled the Election Laws of 
the State of Massachusetts and has been Secretary of the Massa¬ 
chusetts State Election Law Association, presented his views to 
the committee, generally favoring the direct nomination systems 
of the State, as they are conducted at present, but did not believe 
that one universal law could be made to apply to the whole city 
or State; that there should be a law, which would leave it to the 
community, the district itself, to decide the question, and that in 
a district containing a large city and rural towns, a Direct Nomi¬ 
nations Law would not work, for the reason that the city vote 
would control a nomination in every instance, while in a conven¬ 
tion, by agreement, the nomination might be distributed to some 
extent. That the party has the right to say how they want to make 
nominations, and that he would leave it to the party by vote to 
determine whether they would nominate by convention or by direct 
vote; that the opposing party had no right to come in and dictate 
how this should be done; that there would be no objection to one 
party nominating by direct vote and the other party by convention 
in the same district (page 370). Mr. Gay does not believe in uni¬ 
versal direct nominations, for State officers, nor that it can be 
applied universally; let each district decide for itself. 

On July 14, the committee was invited to a luncheon given by 
the “ Massachusetts Club,” the oldest and most conservative of 
the Republican organizations in the city of Boston. There was a 
large attendance and speeches were made upon both sides of the 
direct nominations question. 

Hon. William E. Murray, who had theretofore appeared before 
the committee, and Michael J. Ready, both Democrats and former 
members of the House, spoke in favor of a limited system in Massa¬ 
chusetts, and Mr. Gay urged the extension of it to all State officers, 
including the School Committee in Boston. 


19 


They were strongly opposed by Mr. Bishop, a Republican, and 
chairman of the Judicial Committee in Massachusetts House of 
Representatives, who spoke particularly of the effect of numerous 
candidates entering into the contest and by their presence and 
activity defeating the will of the people; that is to say, where under 
a convention system, there might he two prominent candidates 
for the office, under the direct system, without the endorsement of 
any particular organization, several candidates might enter the 
contest upon their own platforms and take away the votes that 
would otherwise have gone to a strong and popular candidate, 
and by the plurality system thus bring about his defeat. 

Mr. Ready spoke particularly of the many evils of the old con¬ 
vention system in Boston, which caucuses and conventions were 
without any legislative control whatever; he had, however, been a 
successful candidate under both systems. 

Mr. Charles T. Adams, a Republican and former Representa¬ 
tive, asked the committee to remember that the Massachusetts sys¬ 
tem is the convention system, and that direct nominations have 
been adopted in only a few instances, but that the system, under 
which Massachusetts has nominated its candidates for public office 
during substantially all of its history, has been the convention sys¬ 
tem, and that the many great men that have come to the front in 
Massachusetts are the product of the convention system; that the 
men of Massachusetts should stand for that system, for delibera¬ 
tion, for discussion, and for conventions where men get together 
and talk over these things and come to the wisest and best con¬ 
clusion. He said (page 431) : “ How, when I was in the Legisla¬ 
ture, this question was comparatively new and nearly everybody 
had a little touch of this sentiment in favor of what was called 
1 direct nominations by the people/ but really they have not turned 
out to be direct nominations by the people. They have turned out 
to be direct nominations by the candidates themselves. Because, 
as we all know, that this direct nomination business limits the 
voters to two or three candidates, who file their names early and get 
upon the ballot. So that when the people come to the caucus, they 
cannot have their choice and nominate whom they want to, but 
they are limited to two or three candidates, whose names appear 
upon the ballot and very often they are not favorable to either one 


20 


of the candidates, whose names appear there, but there is nothing 
for them to do, but to vote for them; there is absolutely no choice 
on behalf of the people of the men who shall serve them in respon¬ 
sible positions.” 

Mr. Adams also contended that representative citizens were fre¬ 
quently nominated after deliberation in the convention who were 
not candidates earlier and could not he induced to enter into a 
personal contest for a nomination at a primary election. 

One of the most important and best informed witnesses before 
the commission was Hon. William F. Garcelon, of the city of New¬ 
ton, a suburb of Boston, a Republican in politics and the chair¬ 
man of the Committee on Elections. Mr. Garcelon also presided 
at the luncheon at the Massachusetts Club and spoke briefly there 
upon the subject. The city of Newton is strongly Republican, 
and as a result of his observation he stated that it was his opinion 
that the majority party had grown stronger and the minority party 
weaker under the operation of the Joint Caucus Act, coupled with 
direct nominations for Representatives (Assemblymen), Senators, 
Congressmen, and municipal officers; that the minority party paid 
very little attention to the primaries and in one ward where a 
hundred Democrats were enrolled, the largest number of votes cast 
was fourteen at any primary, and upon one occasion only three 
votes were cast, and that even in the case of contest in the majority 
party, 1,200 out of 5,900 enrolled voters only participated upon one 
occasion and upon another, 300 out of 6,000, and the expense of 
conducting the primary varied from one to ten dollars a vote. He 
asserted that so far as nominees were concerned, good men could be 
nominated under either system, provided the people themselves 
took any interest in political affairs, hut the interest of the masses 
was so slight that ordinarily more abuses were committed under 
the direct primary plan than under the representative system, and 
that better results under such circumstances were obtained by con¬ 
ventions; that the contests for nomination frequently become a 
campaign of personality rather than of principle; that many times 
men were asked by the caucus of citizens to become candidates and 
who accepted nominations from conventions, who would not enter 
into a contest under the direct system; that he did not believe that 
the operation of the system tended in any respect to uplift the 


21 


body politic, for the reason that political activity on primary day 
was largely due to personal solicitation of candidates and the can¬ 
didates were not bound by any allegiance to a group of citizens 
or upon party principles, but simply stood by their individual 
declarations. 

Mr. Garcelon, however, thought that good results might come 
under such a system in compact districts where a candidate for 
office in the course of a few days might see all the voters and get 
acquainted with them, or where they were likely to know him, but 
if the district was large, or the office was territorially large, it 
would cost a great deal of money and take a great deal of time 
to go over the district and see the voters and in such case he believed 
the convention system was preferable. That better results are 
obtained and better nominations secured when made by the nomi¬ 
nating caucus or convention in any large organization. Mr. Gar¬ 
celon thought, however, that they had not experimented long 
enough with the direct nomination plan to be certain that it was 
the plan to adopt for a whole commonwealth, or whole city or for 
large districts, and that 11 in making any reform in election methods 
we should go very slowly.” 

Mr. Garcelon said that it was difficult to determine whether the 
operation of the one system or the other selected better candidates, 
that in some cases under the direct system, the smooth man with 
money and a willingness .to spend it by making an extensive cam¬ 
paign and mixing with the people might secure the nomination 
which, under the convention system he could not get; that the 
general results were about the same (page 119). That most of the 
Democratic representatives in the House voted for direct nomina¬ 
tions, although some of them told Mr. Garcelon quietly that they 
were voting so because they felt they must; that they did not 
believe in it being a good thing, simply felt the pressure of the 
public pulse from back home. Mr. Garcelon doubted if the Cor¬ 
rupt Practices Act was or could be enforced. That a common 
method of evasion was to appoint some relative or friend as a com¬ 
mittee or agent during the primary contest and let such person 
spend the money; that only a small portion of the candidates ever 
filed any returns as to their expenses and the matter was not fol¬ 
lowed up and no actions taken with reference thereto; that at the 


22 


last election, out of 1,029 public officials elected, there were only 
372 made returns. 

The direct nomination system has not been extended in the 
State of Massachusetts and several cities that had adopted the 
Joint Caucus Act have revoked it. 

Mr. Garcelon expressed himself very freely as to the provisions 
of the proposed legislation in New York State and condemned the 
proposed committee plan as being too far removed from the people; 
that in that respect, such legislation would not be in line with 
direct nominations. The expenses of candidates is, in the opinion 
of Mr. Garcelon, very much increased by the direct nomination 
system. 

Reference has already been made to Nathan Matthews, chair¬ 
man of the Finance Commission, who made the report quoted 
above. Mr. Matthews also appeared before the Committee and 
explained the work of the commission and its reasons for the report 
in abolishing the direct nomination system for city officers and 
providing for the alternative referendum before mentioned. 

Some form of direct nominations had been in use in the city for 
eight or nine years and had proven unsatisfactory, and as Mr. 
Matthews says, “ The character of the nominations had steadily 
deteriorated and the nominees had ceased to be representative men 
in either of the parties ” (page 204). He added that the system 
“ has been destructive of party organization and party representa¬ 
tion as well; ever since the system was introduced in this city for 
city offices and municipal offices, there has been a complete disrup¬ 
tion of the party and of party principles, and an absolute disin¬ 
tegration of party organization ” (page 205). 

He added further: “ It has very distinctly had the same effect 

upon the men elected from Boston to the State Legislature, and it 
works this way, if I may explain for a moment: there being no 
convention, there is no body of men to declare the principles of the 
party and there is nobody to whom the nominee is responsible, and 
the party as a whole cannot be held responsible, because the nomina¬ 
tions go to individuals calling themselves Democrats or Republi¬ 
cans as the case may be, who go around and get their own nomina¬ 
tion at the primaries by various more or less underhand methods, 
and when nominated and when elected, they recognize no responsi- 


23 


bility to them. They cannot be held responsible because they do 
not get the nominations from a party organization; they get it 
from the voters themselves at the polls, at the primaries. So that 
the logical and inevitable result of the practice is the destruction 
of not only the party machine, whatever that may be worth, but of 
all idea of party discipline, party responsibility, and party prin¬ 
ciples. There isn’t anything of it left after this system has been 
in operation for several years. If you are going to help the party 
government at all, you cannot get it by means of direct party 
primary nominations. You get simply government of individuals 
and factions calling themselves one thing or the other as the case 
may be. But you get no true party action or party responsibility, 
or party discipline in any way. That is the way it is intended to 
work by most of the gentlemen in favor of it.” * * * “ The 

men able to fill state and national offices want to see real govern¬ 
ment and that you cannot get by any such system as this; it is a 
negation of party government. There is no opportunity for any 
campaign of principle because there isn’t anybody to declare the 
principles and there is no convention. We used to have, even in 
municipal politics in Boston,* a party platform, but you cannot 
have them to-day because there isn’t any convention to declare 
them. It is the same way in the Senatorial districts and in the 
Representative districts. One man goes to the Legislature or the 
city council and acts as he pleases; there isn’t any party to hold 
responsible; he is not responsible to any party but himself and no 
party is responsible to the public at large for his vote ” (page 
208). * * * “ The nomination, the caucus and the primaries 

are confined to men, who are not simply ordinarily receptive of 
political honors, but to men who want them so much that they will 
put their whole time in and their money out to get them, and then 
having made up their minds to secure the nominations in that 
way, they go to work at it by any sort of private, secret, surrep¬ 
titious, underhand method of action ” * * * “ The contest has 
degenerated over and over again in this State into a mere exchange 
of personalities. And thus these conditions and the expense in¬ 
volved and the character of the nominations and campaign that is 
invited, all tend to discourage the nomination of real representa¬ 
tive men in either party. * The result has been a steady deteriora¬ 
tion in the character of the nominees on both sides; so much so 


24 


that at the present time, they are unrepresentative of their con¬ 
stituency ” (page 209). * * * “ The poor man has no chance 
at all; he is shut out to start with; and so is the representative 
business man and the professional man. The expense is double, 
practically, on the face of it; two elections instead of one, and I 
suspect that in practice, it is considerably more than that.” 

Mr. Matthews strongly advocated the method of selection of the 
school board by convention. He expressed the belief that the 
direct system is destructive of the majority as well as the minority 
party organization. “ It has hurt the Democratic party more than 
it has the Republican party in Massachusetts, and in Boston, but 
it has hurt both parties; it has now put the Democratic party into 
a condition of disruption, and it will have the same effect on the 
Republican party, if it is continued” (page 215). He said that 
at the time the direct nomination proposition was up in the Legis¬ 
lature, he went to the committee, to his Democratic friends and 
told them what, in his opinion, would happen to the Democratic 
party if the direct system of party nomination was adopted, but 
it had no effect at that time, but his friends, who were in the 
Senate then, have since seen their mistake and changed their 
minds. That during the last four months of 1908, he talked with 
numerous people as to whether they would not rather go back to 
the delegate and convention system than to continue with the 
present direct system, and that he did not find a single man in 
either party in the city of Boston, who had a word to say in favor 
of the direct primary system. The witness added that he had a 
very strong belief upon the question as a citizen and regarded this 
plan of direct party primaries as nothing but a stepping stone in 
the socialistic propaganda; that Socialist papers put at the head 
of four or five things which they want, “ Direct Nominations.” 
u The next step is the Referendum; the next the Initiative; and 
the ultimate goal is Direct Legislation, and that means the aboli¬ 
tion of representative institutions in this country. The people 
who advocate this system are in large part men who want to see 
representative democracy abolished, and some system from 
Australia, Switzerland or ancient Greece of a direct democracy 
installed in its place. The whole system, with all its corrolaries, I 
regard as unrepresentative and as un-denrocratic and as absolutely 
un-American.” 


25 


He thought that the abuses of party conventions had been over¬ 
estimated and that these could be corrected and active corrective 
measures should be taken to correct the convention system, rather 
than to make the experiment of direct nominations. “ The party 
caucus, the party convention, was born in this country. It does 
not exist to-day in any country in Europe. In Europe the party 
candidates are nominated as they used to be in this country before 
the days of Madison, by committees, self choseij, self perpetuating 
committees’ 7 (page 220). 

“ About 1820, you invented a system and that is the system of 
the delegate convention, which of course necessitated the American 
caucus; American it is, absolutely and essentially. And now this 
system, born somewhere, born in foreign lands, under alien insti¬ 
tutions, has been imported into this country unwittingly and 
unconsciously favored by a great many persons, who do not really 
know what it means, and I think it is bad and it is gradually dis¬ 
rupting our political foundation; and the final clinching argument 
against the plan is that it cannot be worked in practice. In other 
words, the system is bad in theory and it is vicious to the last 
degree in practice.” 

lion. John A. Sullivan, the chairman of the new Finance Com¬ 
mission of the city of Boston, and a member of the Finance Com¬ 
mission which reported against direct nominations and in favor 
of the new charter, a lawyer, and affiliated with the Democratic 
party, appointed by the Republican Governor Draper to his 
present position, formerly a member of the Massachusetts Senate 
and for four years representing the Boston district in Congress, 
gave to the Committee valuable results of his experience and 
observation as a member of the Finance Commission, in investi¬ 
gating election and other methods in the city of Boston. Mr. 
Sullivan was a member of the Massachusetts Senate at the time 
the Primary Election Law was established for the city of Boston, 
and was an earnest advocate of the new system. His experience 
has caused him to change his views and he expressed the belief 
that the direct system is a bad system and one that ought to be 
abolished in the State wherever it exists. He does not agree with 
Mr. Matthews that the primary system is bad in theory, but thinks 
it is sound in theory, because it is predicated upon the notion that 


26 


all men are free and equal and that our voters should have equal 
rights in the nomination and election of candidates; that the theory 
is perfectly sound, but it has worked badly in practice. That 
direct nomination has worked badly in practice because the theory 
is founded on false premises, that is “ that all men are of equal 
intelligence and of equal devotion to the public good. I think 
they are not ” (page 224). He gave it as his opinion that there 
has been a general^ deterioration of the character of the candidates 
for public office in the city of Boston and elsewhere since the 
establishment of the Primary Election Law; that the men “ who 
have been nominated by that system, on the whole, taking the 
average of them, are — have shown themselves to be inferior in 
tone and ability and devotion to the public welfare, to the men 
who are nominated under the convention system; the cause is 
easily discovered; the convention system is a part of the party 
system of government, and the party system of government assumes 
responsible leadership. You have leadership under the convention 
system at times that will be responsible, at other times it will fall 
from that standard; on the whole you will have more responsible 
leadership under the convention system than under the primary 
system; there has been no way found to discipline a public officer, 
who has been nominated in the primaries, who may offend the 
responsible leaders of his own party, but he can make his appeal 
directly to the people, and if he is a man of good personal gifts, or 
of large fortune, he can get support in numbers, which he would 
lack in the intelligence of his supporters, and secure a renomina¬ 
tion, although he has proved himself in fact a bad public servant.” 

Mr. Sullivan contended that money counted for more under the 
direct system and that the amount required to nominate a can¬ 
didate for high office in the city of Boston is simply astounding; 
that the cost of the campaign of one candidate for the office of 
mayor in the city of Boston was at least $100,000 under the direct 
nomination system; the salary of mayor is $10,000 a year. Mr. 
Sullivan has been a successful candidate under both systems and 
avers that in any case the convention system at its worst is better 
than the primary system at its worst, and the convention system at 
its best is better than the primary system at its best; the average 
results of the convention system is far superior to the average 


27 


results of the primary system. He said that he looked at conditions 
under both sides from the standpoint both as a politician and as a 
citizen; that he regarded the profession of politics as noble a pro¬ 
fession as there is; that unfortunately the word has received a 
sinister interpretation. All nominations for parliament in Eng¬ 
land are made by committees of the two parties; the voters have 
absolutely no voice whatever in the selection of their candidates, 
and he compared the personnel and work of the English parliament 
with that of the American Congress. 

Hon. Thorndyke Spaulding, of Cambridge, a graduate of Har¬ 
vard College and of Harvard Law School, a Republican member 
of the Massachusetts Senate from the Cambridge district, appeared 
before the Committee. Mr. Spaulding had been in close touch 
with the political conditions for upwards of fifteen years as secre¬ 
tary and chairman of the Cambridge City Committee and as 
secretary and assistant secretary of the Republican State Com¬ 
mittee and as a member of the Committee on Election Laws at the 
last session of the Legislature. He was also chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. Mr. Spaulding believed that direct nomina¬ 
tions diminished the interest of the educated, public spirited men 
in political affairs rather than increased it. By the taking away 
of the conventions, where men interested in public affairs get 
together and touch elbows with other men from other wards or 
other cities and other districts. According to his observation, 
where it has been tried in Massachusetts, it has been a distinct 
failure. The Cambridge district does not nominate by the direct 
method and a few years ago an effort was made to include this 
district in the Springfield, Worcester and Somerville districts, 
which elected by the direct nomination system, and it was the 
almost universal opinion among both parties that they did not 
wish to be included in the bill, which put them into a direct 
primary district, and it was struck out in the House. 

He said that where you have a direct nomination system, the 
man with a large sum of money, or with a very easy working 
mouth and brain, can get in and make a great headway oftentimes, 
where in a district that is represented by men in the convention, 
he could not succeed. 

The Committee obtained as a part of its record, sample primary 


28 


ballots, election ballots, the Election Commissioners’ reports and 
other documents to illustrate the method of conducting the primary 
elections in the city of Boston and elsewhere in the State, with 
the tabulated results of the primary and State elections, all of 
which are referred to and made a part of this report. 

Observations on the Massachusetts System. 

1. With the exception of the city of Boston, nominating systems 
in the State of Massachusetts are somewhat after the manner of 
“ local option,” except that direct nominations can be had only 
by special legislative enactment. 

2. There is no State-wide primary; the only candidates for pub¬ 
lic office nominated by the direct system are three Congressmen 
out of fourteen; one Governor’s Councillor out of eight; thirteen 
out of forty State Senators; one hundred one Representatives 
(Assemblymen) out of one hundred seventy-three; and municipal 
officers in certain cities by special enactment. County and State 
officers are nominated by the convention and municipal officers in 
the city of Boston by petition, without primary or caucus. The 
Councillor district, Congressional districts, and most of the Senate 
and Assembly or representative districts, having direct nomina¬ 
tions, are within what is known as the Metropolitan district, Bos¬ 
ton and vicinity. 

3. Public sentiment does not demand, but prevents the extension 
of the system and the abolition of the county and State convention. 

4. The direct system has proven unsatisfactory, after a trial of 
about nine years, for the nomination of municipal officers in the 
city of Boston, for the following reasons: 

(a) The character and personnel of candidates has de¬ 
teriorated. 

(b) The expense to candidates has largely increased, and 
the poor man is practically prevented from conducting a per¬ 
sonal campaign. 

(c) The primary contests for nomination have become 
campaigns of personalities rather than principles. 


29 


(d) Party organization and party responsibility has de¬ 
creased. 

(e) The majority party only participates to any great ex¬ 
tent in the primary, there being usually no contest in the 
minority party, and where the joint caucus is not had, mem¬ 
bers of the minority party participate in the majority party 
primaries to a considerable extent, so that frequently the pri¬ 
mary vote in such party is larger than the vote cast at the 
election. 

In the opinion of the closest observers of political conditions, 
including such men as Charles W. Eliot, former president of Har¬ 
vard University, President Lowell of Harvard University, and 
many other independent, patriotic citizens, uninfluenced by per¬ 
sonal political considerations, the direct system has worked very 
badly wherever tried in this State, except in small compact dis¬ 
tricts. The views expressed by these men compel the attention 
and careful consideration of the committee, and the evidence given 
by them in detail, as shown by the record, should be given the most 
careful consideration. 


30 


PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Law. 

As the various caucus acts of Massachusetts are models of com¬ 
plexity and lack of uniformity, the uniform Primaries Act of 
Pennsylvania may be regarded as a model of simplicity. It was 
passed at a special session of the Legislature and became a law 
February 17, 1906. At the same time, the Personal Registration 
Act, requiring personal registration in cities of the first and second 
class, was passed, so that the operation of the Registration Law 
and of the Primary Law were frequently confused by witnesses, 
who testified upon the subject. 

Registration of voters is in charge of a Board of Registration 
Commissioners, appointed by the Governor, not more than two of 
whom shall be of the same political faith, and they in turn appoint 
registrars for the various election districts of the city, whose 
appointment is governed by substantially the same rules. 

Registration is not conducted by the election officers and this 
method of appointing Commissioners of Registration and Boards 
of Registrars has proven quite satisfactory to all parties. 

Election officers, or inspectors, are supervised by the County 
Commissioners, who in some respects have duties similar to our 
Boards of Supervisors, but all election officers are nominated at 
the primaries and elected in the usual way. There are nearly 
1,200 election districts in the city of Philadelphia and substantially 
3,600 election officers. The success of the appointive system, so 
far as registrars is concerned, has been so marked that there is 
quite a universal demand for the abolition of elective inspectors 
and a substitution of an appointive system similar to that of the 
registrars, and at the last election the Constitutional Amendment 
authorizing the Legislature to enact such law was submitted to 
popular vote. 

Every applicant for registration must be assessed and pay either 
a tax upon property or a poll tax of fifty cents once in two years, 
and must prove to the Board of Registrars that he has paid such 
tax. The Constitution of the State prohibits the enactment of laws 
having special or local application in the conduct of primaries and 


31 


elections; lienee the Primary Act applies to all parts of the State 
and requires that all municipal officers, county officers, members 
of the Legislature and members of Congress shall he nominated at 
the primary by direct vote; also that delegates to State conventions 
for the nomination of State officers and party committeemen shall 
be elected at the primary. Two primaries are held each year 
known as the winter and spring primary, the former for the nomi¬ 
nation of local and municipal officers and the latter for the nomi¬ 
nation of members of Congress, delegates to State conventions and 
the more important county officers. It is also provided that dele¬ 
gates to State and national conventions, except delegates at large 
to national conventions, which shall be elected at the State conven¬ 
tion, shall be elected at the spring primary. The act does not 
apply to the nomination of candidates for presidential electors or 
to the nomination of candidates to be voted for at special elections 
to fill vacancies, but party rules may provide for the nomination 
of presidential electors at primaries. The primaries of all parties 
are held at the same time and place and the primaries conducted 
at public expense, which is paid by the county treasurer and he is 
reimbursed by the State Treasurer, so that the State Treasurer 
ultimately pays the entire expense of conducting primaries for 
the nomination of all candidates for office that are nominated at 
the primaries and for the election of all delegates to state and 
national conventions, as well as for all municipal officers. Town 
and borough officers may be nominated and elected by the method 
in vogue before the act took effect. A separate ballot is provided 
for each party and the names of the candidates for nomination 
are entered in separate “ blocks ” and alphabetically arranged 
under the designation of the office. These nominations are made 
upon petition, 200 names being required for member of Congress, 
judges of the courts, and state senator, fifty signatures being re¬ 
quired for the State House of Representatives, and for officers 
to be voted for by the entire county, and ten signatures being 
required for the nomination for all other offices and for delegates 
to state and national conventions and for party officers. These 
petitions are required to be filed at a designated time before the 
primary. There is no party enrollment, and every qualified voter 
is entitled to receive the party ballot, which he calls for unless 


32 


challenged, and if challenged, he is required to swear that at 
the last preceding gneral election he voted for a majority of the 
candidates upon the ticket for which he calls; presidential electors 
are counted as individuals, and this enables a large number of 
persons who voted the national Republican or Democratic ticket 
to vote the same ticket at the primaries of the year following, 
although they may not ordinarily vote such ticket for municipal 
or State officers. The plurality vote nominates. There are five 
registration days each year. At the time of registration every 
applicant, who can write, is required to sign his name, and if 
challenged at the primary or election, he may be again required to 
sign his name, and a comparison made by the election officers, from 
whose decision there is no appeal that could be effective for the 
primary or election day. 

It will thus be seen that every voter, if he performs his full duty, 
has seven distinct acts to perform each year, as follows: 

1. Ascertain from the record that he has been assessed for a 
tax. 

2. Go to the proper officer and pay the tax. 

3. Appear personally before the board of registration and 
register. 

4. Attend the winter primary in January. 

5. Attend the spring primary in June, or in April in 
presidential years. 

6. Vote at the spring election in February. 

7. Vote at the general election in November. 

Political committees find that their labors are constant and 
that citizens are liable to neglect some of those duties, unless they 
are constantly reminded, and their duties thus become very oner¬ 
ous. The frequency of primaries and elections, taken with the 
registration provisions, has created an almost universal demand 
for the abolition of the February election, so as to do away with one 
primary and one election and at least one or two registration days. 
A constitutional amendment was submitted at the last election for 
that purpose and carried by the vote of the people at the November 


33 


election, 1909, and will take effect in the year 1911, so that com¬ 
mencing with 1911 the officers who were formerly elected at the 
spring election will be voted for in November of the odd years, 
and State officers, members of Congress, etc., will be voted for 
in the even years. This will materially relieve both the voter 
and the political committees from the burden of so many primaries, 
elections, registration days, etc. 

The Constitution provides for minority representation upon the 
board of county commissioners, and the present board in Philadel¬ 
phia is composed of two Republicans and one member of the so- 
called “ William Penn ” party, a reform organization for muni¬ 
cipal elections only, which cast more votes than the Democratic 
party in the city. 

The first primary under this act was held in January, 1907, 
six primaries having been conducted under it. 

Prior to the adoption of the Uniform Primaries Act the method 
of nomination of candidates for office was the usual delegate and 
convention system without any statutory control, but such caucuses 
and conventions were conducted according to party rule; in one 
or two counties, particularly Crawford and Beaver counties, the 
system of Direct Nominations had prevailed for some years. The 
primary ballots are all of the same color, but have the party 
name printed upon the outside and samples of these ballots are 
submitted with this report. The Primary Law was adopted largely 
because of the agitation of the reform elements in the city of 
Philadelphia, but when finally passed, was a compromise act accept¬ 
able to all parties. There is no special agitation for the extension 
of the system to include State officers and the abolition of the 
State convention. If a voter takes the required oath upon chal¬ 
lenge at the primary, and should see fit to make an untruthful 
statement, it would be impossible to convict him of perjury for 
two reasons: First, he is entitled to protection because of the 
law relating to the secret ballot, and as he is the only person who 
knows how he voted, he could not be compelled to 'answer a ques¬ 
tion which might tend to incriminate him, and no convictions 
for a violation of this statute have ever been had. 


2 


34 

The Operation and Results of the Primary Law in 
Philadelphia. 

The City' Club, which is the nucleus of the Reform Associa¬ 
tion in Philadelphia, assisted the committee materially and took a 
great interest in the investigation. 

The leaders of the Republican and Democratic organizations 
declined to appear before the committee and practically gave us 
no assistance, apparently not wishing to go on record on one^side 
or the other of the controversy. 

Air. J. Henry Scattergood, one of the four members of the 
commissioners of registration, and Mr. Frank J. Gorman, the 
Philadelphia member of the county commissioners, gave to the 
committee, careful and detailed statements of the Registration 
Law and the Primary Law, and Mr. Gorman, while generally 
commending the Primary Law, was particularly frank and honest 
in his statement of weak features which had developed under the 
operation of the act during the last three years, and from his testi¬ 
mony the following facts appeared: The Republican organization 
of the city of Philadelphia is so largely in a majority that in all 
of the six primary elections they have succeeded in nominating 
everyone of the organization candidates, and not only this, they 
have in most instances dictated the nomination of the candidates 
upon the reform ticket, known as the “ City Party,’ 7 the “ Philadel¬ 
phia Party,” and “ William Penn Party,” successively, and also 
upon the Democratic ticket. 

When organization men have been nominated upon the reform 
party ticket, the reformers have pre-empted a new name and by 
getting a petition signed by two per cent of the largest vote cast for 
any candidate at the last preceding election, have thus been able 
to present their own candidate at the election. This is the explana¬ 
tion of change of name each year of the reform party since the 
passage of the Uniform Primaries Act. In many instances for 
minor officers, the organization has not filed the petition of any * 
candidate against an independent candidate or candidates, but by 
concerted action on the primary day, without any apparent con¬ 
test, has written in the name of its candidate and the independent 
candidate has thus been taken unawares and defeated. 


35 


At the June primary, 1909, there was a spirited contest for the 
office of District Attorney, Samuel P. Rotan being the organization 
candidate, and D. Clarence Gibboney being the candidate of the 
Reform party. Mr. Gibboney received the nomination of the 
William Penn party, and, although a Republican in national 
politics, he received the nomination of the Democratic party, con¬ 
trary to the wishes of the Democratic organization, and came within 
4,500 votes of receiving the nomination upon the Republican ticket. 
At the election which followed, however, the Democratic organiza¬ 
tion apparently did not stand by Mr. Gibboney, and he was defeated 
by a majority of something like 50,000. If the Reform party 
had acted within the ranks of the Republican party instead of 
having an independent column and instead of endeavoring to 
nominate their man upon a Democratic ticket, they undoubtedly 
would have succeeded in nominating their candidate on the Repub¬ 
lican ticket. 

There seems to be no method by which this practice can be 
stopped and the result is very destructive to the Reform party and 
the Democratic minority party. 

The system has proven an absolute failure so far as the elimina¬ 
tion of the boss and machine are concerned, and the Republican 
organization is perfectly satisfied, from their point of view as 
politicians, with the working of the system. 

So far as the selection of candidates is concerned, there has 
been no marked improvement since the introduction of this system. 
An aroused public sentiment will compel the selection of better 
candidates under either system, and sometimes bad candidates 
have been withdrawn after nomination. The Republican organ¬ 
ization have succeeded in every instance; it appears that the same 
officers have been nominated by the primary system that would 
have been nominated under the convention system. 

In minor offices, however, selection of reputable candidates has 
been difficult. In very many instances, election officers, who have 
been tried and convicted for offences against the Election Law 
have been renominated, under this system, and re-elected. 

Mr. Gorman stated that he had collected statistics of thirty 
election officials who had been convicted of election crimes and 
imprisoned, and of that number five or six, and possibly ten, had 


36 


their names printed upon the primary ballot and were nominated 
and elected in 1908. (Page 590.) 

For the unexpired term of a school director the name of a 
Ionian of ill-repute was written in as a candidate for school 
director on the primary ticket of the Reform City party and was 
nominated. The fact was used to the detriment of the Reform 
oarty and was quite disastrous, for she became the regular nominee 
)f that party and her name was printed upon the official ballot. 
There seems to be no way to prevent such occurrences. (Page 
571.) 

Although the law requires that the individual voter shall pay 
his tax, the money is frequently furnished by political organiza¬ 
tions and this leads to abuse, scandal, and serves no useful pur¬ 
pose, according to the statement of Mr. Gorman. 

The ease with which nomination papers are obtained frequently 
results in a mutiplicity of candidates. For minor offices ten 
signatures only are required, and there is no provision of law 
requiring these signatures to be acknowledged or sworn to, so 
that frequently names are put upon the official ballot as a joke. 
(Page 620.) As many as thirty candidates for magistrate where 
only two were to be nominated, have appeared upon a single 
primary ticket. (Pages 554, 571.) 

It is a common occurrence for members of one party to vote 
the primary ballot of another, and in a single ward at a recent 
primary 453 voted who were not qualified. (Pages 561-562.) 

Mr. Gorman, who is an experienced commissioner, does not 
know of any amendment which can be made that will prevent this, 
and strongly objects to the system of enrollment in force in Hew 
York State, believing that it will prevent independent action that 
is frequently desirable to correct evils which may have grown up 
under the fostering care of a very strong political organization. 
(Pages 563, 566.) 

At the first primary held after the law went into effect about 
sixty per cent of the registered vote of Philadelphia participated, 
there being an exceedingly hot contest over some of the officers. 
At the next primary about thirty per cent voted and at the next 
about forty per cent, the number participating depending entirely 
upon whether or not there is a strong contest over any particular 
candidate. 


37 


Mr. Gorman thought that the advantage of preferential position, 
where the names were put on in alphabetical order, was quite 
marked, but could not suggest any way to correct it. Under the 
convention system there was no expense to city or state, each 
party being controlled by its own rules and paying its own 
expenses in conducting caucuses and conventions. Under the 
Uniform Primaries Act the entire expense is ultimately borne by 
the State, and this notwithstanding a large portion of the expense 
is incurred by reason of the nomination of municipal officers. 
All bills are paid in the first instance by the County Treasurer 
and upon his certificate the State Auditor allows the bills and they 
are paid by the State Treasurer. The June primary of 1909 in 
Philadelphia cost $97,000 and owing to the contest over the office 
of district attorney there were 153,000 votes cast. It has cost 
the public practically $200,000 a year in the city of Philadelphia 
alone to conduct the primaries under the Uniform Act of 1906. 
(Pages 576-577.) 

A peculiar condition has arisen under the provision requiring 
that party committees shall be elected at the primary. The court 
of common pleas has decided that a party is the sole judge of the 
qualifications of its own membership, and in several cases where 
a reform candidate or some objectionable candiate has been elected 
as the committeeman of another party, the party organization has 
refused to allow such member to participate in its deliberations, 
and the court has sustained such refusal. The result of this 
decision, which has not been questioned, is to make the election of 
party committeemen at the primaries a farce, to which nobody 
pays any particular attention, and it is practically optional 
whether the party elects its party committeemen or appoints 
them. (Page 601.) 

Mr. Gorman is but twenty-five years of age and holds a respon 
sible position as county commissioner with a salary of $5,000 a 
year, having been nominated by petition after his defeat at the 
primary. He is well versed in all matters relating to the primary 
election laws, but had little experience under the delegates con¬ 
vention system. He believes that notwithstanding the weak 
features of the Primary Law this method of nominating municipal 
and county officers, congressmen, State senators and representa- 


38 


tives is preferable to the former convention system, and thinks 
that some of the evils which have arisen in the operation of the 
system will be eliminated with longer experience. 

Mr. Howard A. Chase, a former county commissioner, affiliated 
with the Republican organization at Philadelphia, added some 
interesting statements from his experience and observation of the 
primary system in Philadelphia. 

He stated that it would be little short of a miracle for a candi¬ 
date who was not supported by one of the organizations to be 
nominated; in fact, he knew of no such instance; and an inde¬ 
pendent candidate for mayor, for example, could not make the 
canvas without the expenditure of a large amount of money. 
(Page 611.) He said that the Republican organization had no 
objection to the Uniform Primaries Act; that they had always 
succeeded under it, and had nominated the same men to office 
who would have been nominated if suggested by the organization 
leaders. Prior to the Primary Law it was not uncommon for 
fusion candidates to procure nominations and to be elected, 
although the Republican majority in the city was frequently 
100,000. So far as its effect upon nominees and voters is con¬ 
cerned, he could not see any advantage to the body politic in the 
system, that it had not resulted in any respect in the overthrow 
of the boss or machine in the city or state. (Page 614.) He 
believed, however, that uniform primaries had come to stay, and 
advocated a combination of the two systems by which candidates 
for congress, State senators and State officers could be nominated 
by convention and in country counties the so-called Crawford 
county system, which has its advantages, might be continued. 
(Page 615.) 

As ballots have to be printed for each organized party double 
the total number of votes cast for any candidate of said party 
within the election district at the last general election, and as 
under the law any organized party can demand as many additional 
ballots as they desire, the cost of printing is enormous and the 
number of official ballots printed for the winter primary of 1909 
practically amounted to one for every man, woman and child in 
the city, or more than a million and a quarter. The expense of 
conducting the primaries, which has been stated to be about 


39 


$100,000 for each primary or $200,000 a year for both primaries 
in the city, is based upon the pay of the primary officers at one- 
half the- rates received for the general election, and there is great 
complaint about this, as in many country districts the officers 
receive for the primary only about one dollar per day. 

There is no limitation upon the number of nomination papers 
which a voter may sign, and the view is taken that it is anybody’s 
privilege to go before the people as . a candidate, and that the 
signature of the petitioner does not commit him to the support 
of the candidate at the primary. The ease with which new 
parties are formed by procuring only two per cent of the highest 
vote at the last election is deprecated by Mr. Chase, who thinks 
that the percentage should be as high as ten, so as to avoid so 
many party columns upon the election ballot, and the printing 
of so many separate primary ballots. At the last primary there 
were seven or more such ballots. 

There is also much contention over the authority of the county 
commissioners to open the ballot boxes and recount the votes, as 
to whether their office is purely ministerial or judicial, and if 
upon opening the ballot boxes and finding that fraud has been 
committed they can make a new return and issue certificates to 
the successful candidate. At the time of our hearing in Phila¬ 
delphia there were 380 cases out of 1,162 districts in the city of 
Philadelphia, in which frauds were charged at the primaries and 
the effort was being made to have the primary boxes opened and 
a recount made. 

During Mr. Chase’s term as county commissioner he sought to 
have the law amended so as to eliminate some of its defects, and 
in this connection had extensiye correspondence with county com¬ 
missioners and county commissioners’ clerks in different parts of 
the State. Portions of some of the replies will appear at pages 
630 and 631. One from Waynesboro, Green County, Pennsyl¬ 
vania (page 630) says, after reciting some suggestions for 
improvement in the law: “ These are just a few suggestions, 
but for God’s sake and humanity, improve over the former law.” 
Another from Emporium, Cameron County, Pennsylvania, says: 
u In regard to the new primary election bill would say: If there 


40 


is not some change in the pay for the board it will soon be impos¬ 
sible to get any one to serve.” 

One from Norristown, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a 
county adjoining Philadelphia, under date of August 6, 1908, 
says, among other things: “ As for myself, personally, I think the 
best change in the primary election would be to wipe it out 
entirely, as there seems to be very little virtue in it.” 

As no candidate had ever been successful in securing the nomina¬ 
tion on the Republican ticket, unless he was backed by the Repub¬ 
lican organization, Mr. Chase did not think that the character and 
standing of the men who had been nominated to legislative offices 
had been materially improved under the Direct Primary Act. 
(Page 033.) 

Mr. John H. Fow, a lawyer of thirty-one years’ standing and 
former attorney for the county commissioners, having supervision 
of primaries and elections, and also a member of the legislature 
for twenty years, gave the committee some interesting facts. 

Mr. Fow is a Democrat and has made the study of election 
laws a hobby since 1889. (Page 635.) While in the Legislature 
he was opposed to the adoption of the Primary Law and is now 
opposed to it for the reasons which he states (page 636) : That 
in this state before the adoption of this system each party helped 
each other to make nominations. Since the adoption of the system 
each party helps themselves to make nominations for other parties. 
He said that since the adoption of the system the Democratic 
party has never elected anybody, but before the system, in many 
instances, public sentiment was aroused to such a degree that the 
Democratic party, with the aid of the Independents, was able to 
elect some of their candidates. That in caucuses where the Repub¬ 
lican party succeeded in putting Republicans upon the Demo¬ 
cratic ticket Democrats would not support their own candidates, 
and this was very detrimental to party discipline. (Page 638.) 

Party organizations back of a candidate assumes some responsi¬ 
bility for the character of the candidate, and if a bad nomination 
is made public opinion will defeat him. He called attention to the 
election of Democratic Governor Pattison twice. At the time of 
the enactment of the law the newspapers throughout the city and 
State were demanding the Uniform Primary and this had consider¬ 
able to do with public sentiment. (Page 642.) 


41 


Another feature of the law condemned by Mr. Fow was the 
fact that it is necessary for a voter to ask for the ticket of a 
particular party when he goes to the primary. Many business 
men will not do this and many are deterred from asking for an 
Independent party ticket because of their fear of what the organ¬ 
ization may do to them; he said that many had even advocated a 
blanket ballot in order to have it secret, but this, of course, was 
open to the objection that a voter could support any ticket he 
pleased without reference to party. He claimed that many men 
would not go to the primary because they had to say publicly, 
“Give me a Republican ballot, give me a Democratic ballot, or a 
Willian Penn ballot,” and if they did not vote some other person 
would vote for them (pages 642, 643), although the Registration 
Law had reduced that to a minimum. 

Another feature, which provides for the appointment of asses¬ 
sors who are required to get lists of names which are registered 
by proxy, was condemned. He said that they had been known to 
go to a graveyard and write down forty or fifty names they found 
on tombstones and one assessor was tried in court because he had 
on his assessment list “A. Canary,” having seen one hanging in a 
barber shop window. 

At the last primary the Democratic party was not permitted 
to name its own candidate for district attorney, but Mr. Gibboney, 
a Republican, was the successful candidate on the Democratic 
primary ticket, and two reputable lawyers who contended for the 
honor, were defeated. He also claimed that the successful 
nominees were selected long in advance by party organizations and 
were always nominated. (Page 646.) 

Mr. Franklin S. Edmunds, a member of the school board of the 
city, took an opposite view, and claimed that in cases where 
Republicans were nominated upon Democratic tickets it was by 
the votes of so-called independent Democrats. Mr. Edmunds was 
connected with the Independent party of Philadelphia, and was a 
candidate for the nomination of receiver of taxes at the first 
primary in January, 1907, receiving the nomination of the City 
party and the Democratic party, although he had never been a 
Democrat. (Page 648.) 

Under whatever system a nomination is made, good or bad 


42 


results depend upon the interest or lack of interest the people 
take in the situation. Mr. Edmunds • believed that when the 
people are aroused the Direct Nomination system gives them a 
better chance to show their power and to bring about results which 
have not been given them in the delegate and convention system. 
However, prior to the adoption of this system, on several occasions, 
the people have been aroused and defeated the dominant party, 
but have not done so since the enactment of the Uniform Primaries 
Act. The reason for this, Mr. Edmunds thought, was because the 
people had not been aroused since January, 1907, except during 
the district attorney contest in the last six months. (Page 656.) 

An unknown man, running independently for an important 
office like mayor and not supported by any political organization, 
would have little chance of nomination, and, if he made an aggres¬ 
sive campaign, would be required to spend a great deal of money. 
(Page 663.) 

In cases where there are many candidates for a particular office 
there is considerable advantage in having one’s name at the head 
of the group, as shown by an examination of the ballots marked 
by the voters at the primary. 

He expressed a strong preference for a joint caucus or primary 
of all parties, so that it might be conducted by the regular election 
officers, as is done in Pennsylvania. There is no great agitation 
to extend the system to the nomination of State officers, but 
Mr. Edmunds thought there should be a larger number of signers 
to a nomination paper as many candidates were nominated purely 
as a jest, or for the purpose of having their names printed upon 
the primary ballot, all of which costs money and confuses the 
voters. (Page 668.) 

Mr. Edmunds, while believing in national parties and organ¬ 
ization along national lines, thought that party organization in 
State and municipality was of little use. 

Another interesting witness was Hon. Daniel J. Shern, a 
Republican representative in the Legislature, having served in 
that capacity since 1903. Air. Shern lives in the central part of 
Philadelphia, in a ward where there are a great many colored 
voters, they being a majority of the population of his district. 
He was a member of the Legislature at the time of the enactment 


43 


of the Uniform Primaries Act and a strong advocate of the system, 
and voted for it. He says that it was advocated by nearly the, 
united press of Pennsylvania on the ground that the system of 
conventions was controlled by bosses representing the different 
party organizations, and that the delegate system was corrupt, 
and that Uniform Primaries or a system of Direct Primaries 
would remedy these defects in the delegate system, the theory 
being that every man was born equal and had a perfect right to 
go before his fellows for elective office; that there would be a 
great many individuals who would take advantage of the system 
of nomination. (Page 681.) But, he added, “ I am sorry to say 
that it has not worked out in practice.” 

He further says: “ I was a firm believer in the Direct Uniform 
Primary system at the time the bill was passed, because I felt 
that it would be the means of stimulating political interest among 
young men, particularly in the respective precincts or divisions 
of a ward, and in the wards there would be organizations formed 
by young men, who would take an active part in politics, and go 
before their respective electors for office. But since that time 
that theory, as I said before, has not worked out practically. It 
seems that an organization — either organization — the Inde- 
j3eiident or Reform organization, the Democratic organization, the 
Republican organization, of the ward and the city, agree on certain 
men, these men are usually nominated. We had one primary 
where the Republican organization agreed on certain men and 
nobody filed any nomination papers against them, so that we had / 

a mixed experience of a Uniform Primary election with nobody 
to vote for except certain men Avho were agreed upon by the whole 
organization. The same thing applied to the Reform party. 

There was a magistrate to be chosen among the Independents, and 
there were about twenty or twenty-five individuals who desired 
to receive that nomination. They filed their papers, a good number 
of them, and subsequently they withdrew, and it narrowed itself 
down to two or three men, and the man that the organization — 
the Independent organization — agreed upon, was, of course, 
nominated.” * * * “ So that the Uniform Primary system, 

to my mind, has not accomplished the results which in theory it 
was thought it would accomplish, and it has also been an immense 
expense to this city of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsyl- 


44 


vania.” In this connection, it may be repeated that it cost the 
city of Philadelphia about $100,000 to conduct one primary in 
which there was practically no opposition to the organization 
candidates, and the fees of election officers are but one-half the 
rates allowed them at the election. (Page 682.) 

Reference to specimen primary ballots filed with this report 
will disclose the fact that outside of the Republican party there 
is rarely any contest for a nomination, and yet ballots have to be 
printed- and the formality of an election observed for the nomi¬ 
nation of candidates by the City party, or Philadelphia party, or 
William Penn party, the Prohibition party, the Socialist party, 
and the Democratic party. It is true that at the last primary 
there was a contest for district attorney in the Democratic party, 
but it was not between Democrats, but between Gibboney, a 
Republican affiliated with the William Penn party, and two 
reputable Democratic lawyers, Ladner and Lank, one of whom 
would have, of course, been nominated if Gibboney’s name had , 
not been on the ticket. 

At the same primary the only contest on the Republican ticket 
was for district attorney between Gibboney and Rotan, between 
two candidates for city treasurer and two for register of wills, and 
the organization candidate was successful in each instance. 

Mr. Shern thought the system would work well in small coun¬ 
try districts where the people were generally acquainted with 
•each other ; in a district containing a city and rural communities 
a candidate from a rural community would have no chance against 
the candidate from the city ordinarily. lie cited the condition in 
Lancaster and said that the nominations there on the Republican 
ticket had been made for twenty years according to the dictation 
of the organization — the same since the adoption of the Primary 
Act as before. (Page 687). In regard to the 'personnel of the 
members of the Legislature, there had been no appreciable change 
— that just as able men were there before as since the adoption of 
the Primary Law. If, however, a so-called organization legislator 
should act contrary to the advice or suggestion of his leader or 
boss, and should consequently incur the displeasure of the organ¬ 
ization to such an extent that they would oppose his renomination, 
Mr. Shern thought that the representative would have a better 


45 


chance of securing a nomination bv an appeal directly to the peo¬ 
ple under such circumstances, but cited no instance where this 
had been done. (Page 690). 

lie took the position that he was in favor of the Uniform Pri¬ 
mary Act because he believed the people wanted it, and not be¬ 
cause it had accomplished any good (page 692). For the same 
reason, he said he favored the initiative, the referendum and the 
recall. As to the primary, he said: “If the people want it, let 
them have it, if they can stand the expense” (page 692). 

Mr. Talcott Williams, an editorial writer upon one of the city 
dailies, a Pepublican on national lines, but allied with the Re¬ 
form party, recited some of the evils of the c\. A mention system 
prior to the introduction of the uniform primary, and said that 
there were frequent charges of fraud and coercion at the cau¬ 
cuses. There were still fraud charges at the primaries, as evi¬ 
denced by the proceedings then pending for the opening of some 
380 primary ballot boxes in Philadelphia. He said that he 
thought that the Primary Law had not yet had sufficient trial ta 
demonstrate its efficiency; that it had in no respect altered the 
control of politics, but thought it, in connection with the new 
election and registration law, had increased responsibility (pages> 
703, 706) ; that the law was not entirely satisfactory and a com¬ 
mission had been appointed for the purpose of codifying all the 
laws, including. the Primary Law (page 708). The fact that 
there were two primaries in each year, and two elections, was 
burdensome to voters and to party committees, and he advocated 
the abolition of the wdnter primary and election, which, as has 
been stated, was accomplished at the election in November, 1909. 


46 


Operation and Results of the Primary Law in Harrisburg 
and Vicinity. 

The Committee held a short session at the Capitol building in 
Harrisburg, July 28, 1909. 

The Auditor General furnished the following figures showing 
the expense of primary elections for the years 1907 and 1908, 
the figures for 1909 not being then available : 

Winter of 1907 . $140,156 76 

Spring of 1907 . 218,267 20 

Winter of 1908 . 134,831 62 

Spring of 1908 . 237,591 98 


Total 


$730,847 56 


These figures cover only such part of the expense of holding 
primaries as are audited by the Auditor General’s office, and it 
was a common complaint that the Auditor General refused to 
audit very many of the expenses paid by the county treasurers 
in the first instance, upon the claim that they were not authorized 
by law. At the 1909 session of the Legislature, a bill was passed 
increasing the pay of election officers for services at the primary 
to the same amount paid them for services at the election, but 
this law was vetoed by the Governor, upon the ground of lack of 
revenue. As before stated, the complaint is very general that the 
pay is inadequate, and in the near future it will undoubtedly be in¬ 
creased to the amount received by the same men while serving at 
elections, and this will double the expense to the State. 

Mr. H. C. Oves, chairman of the Republican city committee 
in Harrisburg, stated that he thought the uniform primary was 
somewhat of an improvement over the delegate system, and that, 
if some of the weak points could be remedied, the system would 
be ideal, “ if you could frame an ideal act.” The main weak 
point in this primary is that it does not prevent the voters of one 
party assisting in the nomination of candidates of another party. 
He thought there might be objections to compelling a voter to 
declare his party affiliations at the time of registration, but, as 










47 


party chairman, he would like very much to have that done, as 
the voters, who then would register, the great majority of them, 
“would he the kind that can be easily induced to vote in any way 
you want them to” — that is, that the organization wants them 
to; that the better class of citizens would object to declaring 
their party affiliations. The operation of the system does not in 
any respect tend to destroy the organization of the dominant 
party, which is the party with the money and controls the pri¬ 
maries — not so easily as under the delegate system, but it simply 
requires the organization to spend more money and be a little 
more active, and also requires the individual to spend more money 
(page 788). Since the operation of the primary in Harrisburg, 
the organization candidates have always been nominated, as they 
were before, but with more difficulty and more expense; the mor¬ 
ale of the candidates has not been improved. There has been no 
particular increase in the number of people who participate in the 
primaries for the reason that it is now much more difficult for a 
man to exercise his full franchise than formerly, and this is be¬ 
cause of the registration feature, as well as the provisions of law 
requiring an assessment, two primaries and two elections. 

The Republican organization still controls the county offices, 
and the individuals who have contested against the organization 
have not been successful under this system. The majority party 
in most of the primaries have been using the voters of the minor¬ 
ity party to nominate their ticket, and this results to some extent 
in strengthening the majority party and weakening the minority 
party. (Page 792). 

Sometimes there are a large number of candidates who file 
petitions, but “ we reduce them by ways of our own to maybe 
two or three.” There are more candidates now than there were 
under the delegate system, and sometimes reputable citizens file 
their petitions and stick it out to the finish, thinking that the 
people may change and overthrow the organization. 

Harrisburg has a population of about 80,000 and one town in 
Dauphin county outside of Harrisburg contains about 20,000. 
The organization sometimes allows a nomination to be made 
outside in order to keep its supporters in good humor. Mr. Oves 
did not think it was impossible for an independent candidate 


48 


outside of the city or even in the city, to be nominated, but in 
the six primaries already held it has not happened. He would 
have to make a personal campaign and expend a very large 
amount of money. Mr. Oves did not advocate the increase to 
the number of signers to the petition for nomination, and thought 
that everything should be done to make it as easy as possible not 
only to vote, hut to get out a large number of candidates of as 
good quality as possible. Sometimes undesirable men have easily 
secured the required number of signers on a petition solely for 
the purpose of being induced to retire. (Page 798.) 

In regard to participation in the primaries, the percentage of 
voters attending depends entirely upon the contests and issues. 
There have been primaries in Harrisburg where the total number 
of Democratic votes polled were less than 500, and at the primary 
of June, 1909, the total of all parties was only about 1,500 out 
of about 12,000 votes cast at the last municipal election. (Page 
800.) Mr. Oves thought that the people were better satisfied with 
the present system, although not an ideal system, than they were 
with the old delegate system, for although they were obtaining the 
same results they feel better satisfied, thinking that they have had 
some voice in party nominations. 

Mr. William L. Loser, a Pepuhlican member of the common 
council of the city, and sometimes acting as an Independent, 
believed that the Uniform Primary Act has been decidedly satis¬ 
factory to the people, in that it had given the individual who 
wishes to be a candidate independently, the hope of being nomi¬ 
nated. Mr. Loser was nominated as an Independent in a ward 
containing about 600 voters. He thought that to some extent it 
had corrected the evils that had grown up under the convention 
system so far as it applies to city and county officers, and that it 
is not so easy for the organization to control nominations now as 
formerly. In order to do so they must spend more money and be 
more active. So far as the individual is concerned he did not 
think that there was the necessity under this system for the 
expenditure of money on the part of the man who was not 
affiliated with or selected by the organization as there would be 
under the old plan, although he might have to make personal 
appeals to the voters throughout his district. He thought there 


49 


should be rigid legislation prohibiting members of one party from 
assisting in the nomination of candidates of another, but could 
not suggest remedial legislation that would be effective. 

Upon the invitation of the Committee witnesses attended from 
the city of York, York County, a distance of twenty or thirty 
miles from Harrisburg. Among them was Samuel E. Lewis, 
postmaster of York and private secretary to the congressman of 
that district. Mr. Lewis has been quite active in politics in that 
locality for several years and has had unusual opportunities of 
observing the workings of the Uniform Primaries Act and of the 
delegate and convention system prior thereto, in a county in which 
there is a city of about 50,000 and considerable rural territory. 
He said that one of the conditions arising in such a county was 
that the centers of population control the nominations. York is 
a Democratic county but the city is about evenly divided, with 
normally a small Democratic majority. According to his obser¬ 
vation the character of the candidates selected in that county 
under this system was below that of those selected under the old 
system. In one case a candidate got before the people who had 
been regarded as mentally unsound, and there being no especial 
interest in the primary his name appeared on the ballot and he 
received the nomination. 

The organizaion, however, had controlled the nominations even 
better than before, and there is no wail going up from the camps 
of the organization against the law. (Page 814.) Sometimes 
there was a large number of candidates for the nomination. In 
one case some twenty or thirty for the office of county commis¬ 
sioner and one of the successful candidates received about 1,700 
votes out of 8,700 and the other about 1,500. Mr. Lewis said that 
it was a good deal more expensive for the candidate under this 
system and that he did not see how a poor man could go into a 
contest for a nomination for county office. The Republicans, how¬ 
ever, were in the minority and there were not many contests for 
nomination so that the organization candidates were usually 
unopposed, and because of this they were able to distribute the 
candidates throughout the district quite as well as under the former 
system. Reputable men, however, were more reluctant under this 
system to become candidates of the minority party where there 


50 


was any contest, not wishing to go through two strenuous cam¬ 
paigns. The present Congressman O’Pheney is a Republican 
elected in a Democratic district, first under the convention system 
when he knew nothing about the proposed nomination. He has 
represented the district for four terms. lie would have declined 
to go upon a primary ticket and enter into a contest for the nomi¬ 
nation. Under the former system there was a tentative agreement 
between York County and Adams County, that York should have 
the member of congress for four terms and Adams county for 
two terms — York having a population of about 150,000 and 
Adams of 35,000, but under the Primary Act it will be impossible 
for Adams County to get a representative because there are more 
Republican voters in the city of York than they have in the whole 
of Adams County. (Page 810.) Mr. Lewis said that the “ heel¬ 
ers ” or “ leachers ” who are always seeking to obtain money from 
candidates if possible, are heartily in favor of the Uniform 
Primaries Law, for the reason that when there is a great number 
of candidates for office they can get a few dollars from each one 
and in that way the sum total received is a great deal more than 
they could get under the old system; under that system they 
could get nothing at all until after the nominations were made. 
How they can “ bleed them twice instead of once.” (Page 832.) 
He recited one instance of a ward “ heeler ” or worker who said: 
“ Here is where I get in my winter’s coal, that is a good big list 
of candidates; I will get two dollars from this one and two dollars 
from that one; and he totaled about forty of them at two dollars 
apiece. Then he went to every candidate and said ‘ This fight 
ought to be worth five dollars,’ and figured out that he ought to 
be able to make $140 out of these candidates. I know he did this 
very thing because I have heard different unsuccessful candidates 
afterwards state: “ Why I gave that fellow so and so to do certain 
things in his particular precinct only to find that I did not get a 
vote there.” Another candidate for the same office had given him 
a like amount. This practice is very common because of the 
length of the campaign. ■ * 

State Treasurer Sheatz, whose official residence is Harrisburg 
but legal residence in Philadelphia, was before the committee, but 
was unable to give us much information as to the operation of the 


51 


Primary Law elsewhere than in Philadelphia. He thought, how¬ 
ever, that eventually it would cure abuses in the city of Phila¬ 
delphia when the people once realize the power they have under it. 
(Page 821.) The ease with which the members of one party 
nominate the candidates of another is not desirable and ought to 
be corrected. 

Mr. Fred Weist, former district attorney of the city of York, 
and chairman of the Democratic committee, stated that the 
Primary Law had fallen far short of expectations. Some of the 
abuses and practices under the delegate system, such as bribery 
of delegates, was now impossible, but money was now in large 
measure used with the voters and workers, and the expense under 
the Primary system was largely increased. In some cases worse 
candidates than could have been selected by the conventions had 
been nominated by all parties. Mr. Weist thought that the people 
of his locality generally still had some hope that things would 
improve under the act, but among those who had taken an active 
part in politics they think as a general thing the act has been a 
failure. (Page 824.) 

So far as the Democratic party is concerned, it had usually 
nominated its candidates for the important offices. 

The voters are usually quite indifferent to the primary unless 
they have some particular interest in the nomination or some 
friend they desire to place on the ticket, and this would happen 
as well under the old system as under the new. Throughout the* 
rural districts the people come out very poorly to the primary 
elections. 

Mr. E. S. Hugentugler, assistant postmaster at York and a 
resident of the city for about thirty years, and for about ten years 
secretary of the Republican county committee, stated that the 
Direct Nomination feature of the Uniform Primary Act, speaking 
from the people’s standpoint, is a dismal failure. “ So far as the 
organization is concerned, it is better. The organization can do 
just about as they want with the new Primary Law.” It elimi¬ 
nates the better class of candidates from running for office for 
the reason that they do not want to undergo the worry and expense 
of a long campaign and do the personal hard work necessary for 
success. It is a pure and simple campaign of personality rather 


52 


than of principle, in which the self seeker will win out if he wants 
to. He claimed that the majority of voters are opposed to the 
Primary Act and say that it is an imposition on the taxpayers 
and the voters. “ We have lots and lots of people who will not 
attend the elections at all.” At the primary before the presidential 
election only about 3,000 or 4,000 votes out of 14,000 or 15,000- 
were cast, and there were a number of candidates on the ticket- 
At the general election in the city of York, out of more than 
12,000 votes only about 9,600 were registered. Business men do> 
not wish to express their political belief in asking for the ballot 
of a particular party and will not attend the primary for that 
reason. They shun the idea of announcing publicly that they 
are affiliated with one or the other. (Page 828.) There is not 
the same opportunity under this law of the office seeking the man 
as there is under the convention system. The expense is doubled- 
A year ago it cost one man $800 for a nomination to an office 
which paid $500 or $600. Mr. Hugentugler objected to the 
primary being held in June so long before the election. In the 
city where the “ soaks ” and “ floaters ” are, they have the candi¬ 
date spotted for four, five or six months, and it makes life miser¬ 
able for him. 

The Committee endeavored to obtain the presence of Mr. IT. C. 
Niles, of York, who was the practical organizer of the Lincoln 
Republican party. At the request of the counsel of the Committee 
Mr. Lewis interviewed Mr. Niles who was unable to be present, 
and Mr. Niles said that he thought the Uniform Primary had 
accomplished some good, but had not resulted in the good which 
was expected or anticipated. 

The Operation and Results of tiie Primary Law in 
Pittsburg. 

Mr. William J. Brennan, an attorney of Pittsburg, and with 
the exception of one year chairman of the Democratic county 
committee for the past twenty-seven years, expressed his dis¬ 
approval of the Uniform Primaries Act in very vigorous language, 
so far as its effect upon the Democratic party, which is the minority 
party in the city and county, is concerned. The Republican 
majority in the county is about 40,000 and in the city from 


53 


20,000 to 25,000. He characterized the act as “freak legisla¬ 
tion, which either came from the west or the Antipodes,” and said 
that it was his observation and conviction that the evils which it 
was claimed existed under the convention system were not cor¬ 
rected hut aggravated; that there was no special objection in 
Pittsburg to the delegate conventions or the candidates named, 
but the objections came very largely from the city of Philadelphia, 
and the agitation there resulted in the enactment of the law. 
(Page 838.) Its operation in Pittsburg was to increase the 
strength of the majority party organization and to decrease and 
fend to destroy that of the minority party. This was largely due 
to the fact that the minority party assisted in the nomination of 
the majority party candidates. Under the former system it was 
sometimes possible for the minority party after the majority 
party had made its nomination, to select a better candidate and 
succeed, but the Democratic party had never succeeded since the 
Uniform Primary went into effect, as had before happened with 
the aid of the Independents. 

At the last primary at least 12,000 Democrats voted the 
Republican primary ticket. In almost all cases the so-called 
•organization ticket of the Republican party was successful, but 
the evidence of Mr. Brennan and others disclosed an unusual and 
•extraordinary situation that developed in the June, 1909, primary. 
Mr. Archibald Mackrell, who had been a public official and deputy 
sheriff for a number of years, was an experienced and able man, 
and against whom there was no charge of dishonesty or incompe¬ 
tency made by any one, was a candidate at the primary of the 
Republican organization for the office of sheriff of Allegheny 
-county. The office of sheriff is second in importance to that of 
mayor, the population of Pittsburg being made up to quite a 
large extent of mill employees, of whom a very large per centage 
are foreigners. The salary is $8,000 per year. There was appar¬ 
ently no opposition to the nomination of Mr. Mackrell in the 
Republican ranks, but without previous announcement a young 
man by the name of Judd H. Bruff, twenty-eight years of age, 
unknown to the community, became an aspirant for the office. 
Mr. Bruff had served as a private soldier for eighteen months in 
the regular army in the Philippines and for some time before 


54 


the June primary was employed as a freight brakeman upon one 
of the railroads leading into Pittsburg. His education and quali¬ 
fications for the office were unknown, but he was a member t>f the 
Trainman’s Union, having a membership of 12,000, and as there 
are about 25,000 railroad employees in Greater Pittsburg, his 
position appealed to them, and he made a personal canvas 
throughout the city, basing his claim solely upon the fact that 
he had received from the United States government a very small 
compensation for his services as a soldier, while Mr. Mackrell 
during his long term as a public officer in one capacity or another, 
had received thousands of dollars, the amount of which was 
greatly exaggerated by the printed matter sent out by Mr. Bruff, 
and also by the newspapers. The Republican organization did not 
anticipate any danger and little attention was paid to the candi¬ 
dacy of Mr. Bruff. The Pittsburg Leader, a prominent inde¬ 
pendent newspaper, vigorously supported the candidacy of Mr. 
Bruff for reasons which were not known during the campaign 
preliminary to the primary. As above stated, Mr. Brennan, the 
chairman of the Democratic county committee, says that not less 
than 12,000 Democrats voted the Republican primary ticket and 
the result of the vote showed that Mr. Bruff had 37533 votes while 
Mr. Mackrell polled only 19,238 votes, and Bruff was accordingly 
nominated. How Mr. Bruff could conduct such a campaign, being 
a man without any means whatever, was a mystery to everybody 
until after the campaign was over when, under the Corrupt Prac¬ 
tices Act, he filed his statement showing that he had expended 
$13,000 or $14,000 upwards of $7,000 of which was contributed 
by ex-Senator Flynn, who was a political enemy of Mr. 
Mackrell, and the balance, it is understood, was also borrowed 
from Mr. Flynn. The general belief is that the campaign cost 
much more money than this, and it was stated that between $4,000 
and $5,000 was paid for the personal advertisements of Mr. Bruff 
to the newspapers, particularly the Pittsburg Leader. This 
remarkable result was brought about by the apathy and sense of 
security on the part of the Republican organization which existed 
because of their uniform successes at the primaries. The friends 
of Mr. Bruff, particularly Mr. A. P. Moore, who is connected 
with the Pittsburg Leader, used this circumstance as one of the 


proofs of the efficiency and desirability of Direct Nominations 
system (page 888), while Mr. Brennan characterized it as the 
‘ k rule of the mob, substituting instead of party organization or 
party responsibility the rule of the mob,” and thought that the 
fact that ex-Senator Flynn had contributed so large an amount 
of money for the conduct of his campaign would put the successful 
candidate under great obligations to a political leader. 

Mr. Brennan thought there should be some remedial legislation 
to prevent the members of one party from voting the primary 
ticket of the other, but this was opposed by many because it 
prevented independent action, and also made it necessary for 
voters at the primaries to declare their politics in public, which 
many were disinclined to do. They were also frequently annoyed 
by a multiplicity of candidates, and in such case when they were 
arranged alphabetically upon the ticket the first name had a distinct 
advantage, such position being worth twenty per cent of the vote, 
if there is a bitter fight. The people are unable to discriminate. 
(Page 849.) This multiplicity of candidates was frequently 
brought about by an attempt on the part of active candidates to 
induce others to run for the purpose of reducing the vote of his 
adversary in particular wards. Mr. Brennan did not think that 
it necessarily followed because one candidate received a plurality 
of the votes at a primary that the people had made the best selec¬ 
tion for that particular office; that more than three-fourths of the 
time they would make the worst selection, due to the personal 
activity of the candidate himself and the expenditure of money. 
He commended the Legislature of New York for instituting this 
investigation. 

Upon the Republican primary ballot used in the Bruff-Mackrell 
contest we have also entered the votes cast for the candidates for 
jury commissioner. Eight candidates contended for this office 
and the total number of votes cast was 50,462, of which the 
successful nominee, Bart Fleming, had 17,622, and the other 
candidates together received 32,840. 

This furnishes an illustration of the result where there are 
numerous candidates and the vote against the successful man is 
split to such an extent that he is nominated with a small plurality ;• 
in other words, there were 32,840 votes against Mr. Fleming 


56 


and 17,622 for him, but notwithstanding this fact he is still 
regarded as the candidate of the Republican party. Upon the 
Republican primary ticket for the primary held in April, 1908, 
there were eighteen candidates for representative in general 
assembly, of whom four were to be nominated. The total vote cast 
was 57,742, of which the four winners together received 27,532, 
and all others received 30,210. 

Upon the same ticket there were nine candidates for county 
commissioner, with two to be nominated. The total number of 
votes cast for all was 155,596, of which the two successful candi¬ 
dates together had 67,108, and all others 88,488. 

The primary ballots of the Socialist party and Prohibition 
party show no contests in any of the offices. 

Mr. W. S. McClatchey, chief clerk of the county commissioners, 
having charge of primaries and elections, stated that he had 
observed the added strength because of location of the candidate’s 
name upon the primary ballot; in one instance among the candi¬ 
dates for delegate to the Republican convention, a man practically 
unknown, by the name of Allen, ran the highest of any candidate 
on the ticket. The organization candidates, however, in the case 
of representative in General Assembly, where there were eighteen 
candidates, were all nominated regardless of their location upon 
the ticket. Since the law went into effect he knew of no case 
where the organization candidate had been defeated for any 
important office, except the case of sheriff in the last primary. 
There were a number of councilmen in the city under indictment 
who had been renominated under the Direct system, after indict¬ 
ment. (Page 864.) 

One of the most careful and interesting witnesses before the 
Committee at Pittsburg was Mr. Lee S. Smith, a Republican in 
national affairs, but independent as to local affairs. Mr. Smith 
is a dental supply manufacturer and dealer in dental works, and 
for two years has been president of the chamber of commerce of 
the city of Pittsburg. He said that under the old system of 
delegate and convention the party in power, because of dishonest 
election officers and elections, had become abominably corrupt, 
and thought that the new law had to some extent corrected this 
situation. He stated, however, that the convention system was not 


57 


regulated by statute and thought that the influence of the bosses 
in the primaries had been lessened. He thought it was problem¬ 
atical whether the present system resulted in the selection of a 
better class of candidates, and under the old system when bad 
nominations were made by the dominant party they were defeated 
at the polls, which happened about every third year. 

“ The present system is an awful expense on the candidate,” 
said Mr. Smith; “ one of them spent $32,000 and was defeated 
as a candidate for mayor at the primaries.” (Page 872.) The 
salary is $10,000 a year for three years and no longer. His oppo¬ 
nent spent over $20,000. 

Kef erring to the Bruff-Mackrell contest, Mr. Smith said (page 
878) “ that there were no charges or suggestions that Mackrell 
had not been a competent and efficient officer; the only charge I 
heard occurred in their advertisements; they harped more that this 
young man had gone to the Philippines and fought for his country 
when they needed men, and that he had never held office, and he 
had only received thirteen dollars a month for his services; they 
harped on that and it seemed to strike a popular chord, and it was 
one of the most astonishing things that ever happened; I never 
knew anything like it myself.” That the principal cry was that 
the “ other man had been for twenty-five or thirty-five years an 
office holder and he had received so many thousands of dollars, 
and this young man had never had anything and gone and offered 
his life on the altar of his country and went to the Philippines, 
and that seemed to strike a popular chord and swept him into 
nomination.” “ There are a great many men who would make the 
very best officers in the world, men who would not ask you to vote 
for them and never get it; as an illustration, I say that the best 
men are often those who would not ask for office, and who would 
not announce themselves. Such men would not' enter such a 
primary and fight as was done in the case of the man who spent 
$32,000 while his adversary spent $20,000; they placarded the 
city from one end to the other with the merits of themselves. One 
of them was called ‘ Honest John ’ and he had himself heralded 
on little go-carts going through the streets placarded with ‘ Honest 
John.’ How no honorable citizen would want anything of that 
kind. While the other was going around and they were black- 


mailing each other and throwing mud at each other in such a way 
that no honorable, upright business man would want to do or would 
do to get office.” (Page 881.) 

Mr. Smith admitted that he had been requested to be a candi¬ 
date for mayor, but would not undertake a contest of this kind. 
In summing up his position, Mr. Smith said that if a convention 
could be honestly conducted it would be more likely to get good 
men for public office, and assuming that both primary and con¬ 
vention were equally, honestly and fairly conducted, he would 
prefer the convention for this reason. (Page 882.) 

Mr. A. P. Moore, to whom reference has been made above, 
vigorously contended for the Direct Nominations system, and for 
its extension to State officers. 

He also stated that he believed in the initiative, the referendum 
and the recall. “ I believe in letting the people absolutely rule.” 
Q. Get together and make their own laws ? A. Yes, sir. 

Honorable William A. Magee, the present mayor of the city of 
Pittsburg, who was State senator from 1902 to 1905 and a mem¬ 
ber of the Pittsburg council from 1898 to 1901, stated that he 
had observed the working of the Uniform Primaries Act very care¬ 
fully. (Page 901.) He thought that a great benefit had been 
derived from the passage of the law, which was really independent 
of the Direct Voting system, as the act of 190G provided safe¬ 
guards relating to the purity of the election and the casting of votes 
by the voter independently. Previous to the passage of this law 
Pennsylvania had no statute governing primary elections, except 
that there was a penalty provided for fraudulent voting, and the 
election law was without any protection against fraudulent voting 
and fraudulent counting. There was no registration of voters 
except it was provided under the rules of the parties; the result 
of this was that up until 1905 the people in very few instances 
took any part in the primary elections. The political organ¬ 
izations took complete charge of the primaries and only those 
persons voted who felt some particular interest in the particular 
election. The primaries did not excite general interest. (Page 
902.) The Republican county committee of Allegheny county in 
1905 adopted the Direct Voting system, but was not able to make 
any effective reform in the election machinery system. (Page 


903.) There was no opportunity for an Independent who either 
was opposed to machine politics or who was not a part of the 
machine, to make any headway in any aspiration he might have to 
go on the party ticket. The result of all that was that the majority 
party here, the Kepublican party, for a period of five or six years, 
was regularly defeated twice a year. (Page 904.) 

The first primary election held under the party rules brought 
out a large number of votes, but there were charges of fraud, 
bribery, corruption, intimidation etc., and shortly after the Uni¬ 
form Primary Act was adopted at the special session. 

Mayor Magee noted several defects in the law: 

First. The voting of the majority party ticket by thousands 
of members of the minority party. 

Second. That a large proportion of the voters will not abide 
by the primary, and if unsuccessful, will file independent nomi¬ 
nations, which makes a multiplicity of candidates at the election 
as well as at the primary. 

Mayor Magee thinks there is no use of a primary unless it 
carries with it the support of all the persons who participate in it. 
(Page 909.) 

Third. The plurality nomination in which a successful candi¬ 
date may receive only a small percentage of the total vote. “ I can 
easily see,” said the mayor, “ how a very bad man might be elected 
to a very important office, unless something or other was provided 
in the rules to get the real sentiment of the majority of the 
people.” (Page 911.) The suggestion which has been made of 
requiring the voters to exercise a second choice, the mayor did 
not approve. “ I do not believe the suggestion about voting a 
second choice is a feasible one. I think there are, I say it very 
frankly, I say there are some voters who do not know how to vote 
for a first choice. My opinion is that many voters must be 
advised. We have an enormous foreign population in this com¬ 
munity, many of them who cannot read English, and many of 
them who cannot read their own language, and sometimes if they 
can read they do not know enough about the issues involved or 
about the candidates before the people to exercise an intelligent 
choice.” (Page 911.) 

The mayor added that the result of the primary election as 


60 


he saw it in Allegheny county and in Pittsburg is merely to bring 
about a more or less imperfect way of selecting party candidates, 
and it results in compelling two elections. He thought that where 
the party sentiment was so overwhelmingly in favor of one party 
and against the other, the primary election ought to be decided 
in the general election; one ought to end the other. He said the 
law is popular principally because it gives an honest primary 
election. 

The mayor commented upon the Bruff-Mackrell contest and in 
conclusion said (page 914) : “ This young man, a young man 

that no one knows anything about, that no one knows whether he 
has qualifications for this important office or not, knows about his 
ability, about his training, about his temperament, or anything 
else, beat this old political war horse two to one. How I say that 
this young man may turn out to be the best office holder that 
ever was, but what I say about that primary is that the people 
did not know that; those who voted for him did not know that he 
has the qualifications to fill the office. How under the old time 
convention system no political organization, no matter how much 
bossed it was or how perfectly controlled the machinery was,, 
would dare to put out before the people an unknown young man 
like this as a candidate for an important office of that nature; 
would not dare to do it.” (Page 916.) 

He also commented unfavorably upon the operation of the law 
in the selection of judges in the courts, and spoke of the agitation 
for a new court of common pleas in the city, which meant the 
election of three judges and provided for the holding of a primary 
to select the candidates. The bill did not pass, but in anticipation 
of its passage there was a very undignified scramble among great 
numbers of members of the bar for the places. The petitions of 
more than a dozen lawyers were filed after the bill was passed by 
the Legislature and before it Tvas vetoed by the governor. Prior 
to the Primary Act “ there has always been an attitude of dignified 
reserve on the part of men to allow their names to be considered 
as candidates for judge. And this system is going to produce 
a different state of affairs; the men Pm afraid hereafter who will 
want the judicial nominations, will be the best hustlers or the most 
popular men rather than the most able.” 


61 


The mayor stated in answer to a question, assuming that the 
primaries could be safeguarded by proper legislation and honestly 
conducted, and that delegates to our conventions are thus selected, 
which conventions select the nominees of the parties for the con¬ 
sideration of the people, that his own belief is that the convention 
system with a bi-partisan board and with all the safeguards to 
bring out a fair election, will result in the choice of more capable 
men for the offices.” (Page 920.) But he questioned the advis¬ 
ability of a return to the convention system as it would drive away 
the casual and independent voter from the primary and there 
might be a return to the unfortunate conditions prior to the 
Primary Act. He thought that ultimately the people would have 
a Direct Primary Law, but whether or not such a complicated 
thing as this can at this time be submitted to the votes of the 
people was the real question; that in some ways it had produced 
most excellent results and in other ways it had not produced 
good results, and that he was a little bit afraid that Pennsylvania 
had been too previous about it. “ I want you to understand,” said 
he, “ that the Direct Primary Law w T as not the result of a demand 
for a direct vote, but was the demand for honest primary elec¬ 
tions.” * * * “ We passed a Personal Registration Law, a 

Corrupt Practices Act and a Direct Nominations System all at one 
session.” (Pages 929, 930.) 

Mr. W. H. Coleman, the clerk of the courts of Allegheny 
•county, furnished the Committee with the expense statements of 


the candidates at the June primaries, 
interesting: 

1909, some 

of which are 

Name and Office. 

Expense. 

Salary. 

Mackrell, Sherilf . 

$443 00 

$8,000 00 

Bruff, Sheriff. 

$13,512 08 

8,000 00 

Magee, Mayor .. 

18,282 07 

10,000 00 

Steele, Mayor. 

32,009 45 

10,000 00 

March Primaries, 

1908. 


'Coleman, Clerk of Courts. 

$3,021 61 

$6,000 00 

Dodds, Clerk of Courts. 

2,009 60 

6,000 00 

■O’Neill, Commissioner . 

3,727 75 

6,000 00 

Brand, Commissioner . 

3,551 50 

6,000 00 










62 


Name and Office. 

Expense. 

Salary. 

Copp, Commissioner . 

3,057 33 

6,000 00 

Brvce, Commissioner . 

1,529 84 

6,000 00 

Toole, Commissioner . 

1,194 13 

6,000 00 

Fairma n , Recorder . 

600 00 

6,000 00 

Swan, Recorder . 

1,954 25 

6,000 00 

Cunningham, Comptroller. 

3,859 87 

6,000 00 

Booth, Comptroller . 

4,141 57 

6,000 00 

Stern, Register. 


4,000 00 

Edwards, Register . 

2,831 62 

4,000 00 


Mr. W. H. Stevenson, a merchant and an independent Repub¬ 
lican, spoke strongly in favor of the Primary Law as contrasted 
.with the former conditions under the convention system. He also 
stated that he was strongly in favor of the initiative, the refer¬ 
endum and the recall (940). He thought that the State Legis¬ 
lature should not pass laws that restricted the government in a 
city like Pittsburg. That they were very much handicapped and 
restricted by that means. He believed in a pure democracy. He 
also stated (948) that he would modify his views in this respect 
“ that if you could safeguard the delegate system from corruption 
and influence that you probably could get better results than you 
could in a general way from these incompetent voters that we have 
here, because we have — you know where a manufacturing district 
like Pittsburg every fourth man that you meet on Fifth avenue, 
or Wood street, or Smithfield street, is a foreigner — you walk 
down the street here and every fourth man you meet is a foreigner 
and it takes him a long time to understand, and he don’t under¬ 
stand many times the value of the franchise, what he is voting 
for.” There is no way under the uniform primary for the 
minority party to select a good candidate as against a bad can¬ 
didate, who may have been selected by the majority party, since 
the primaries are all held by both parties on the same day (953). 

Mr. Stevenson said that he had seen the minority party prac¬ 
tically wiped out at the primaries, not that they did not vote, but 
that they voted the Republican ticket, and regarded that as a very 
unhealthy condition of affairs (956). 















63 


Observations on the Pennsylvania System. 

1. The Uniform Primaries Act does not include State officers, 
or United States Senators, but includes delegates to State con¬ 
ventions ; there appears to be no popular demand for the extension 
of the system to include State officers and the abolition of the 
State convention. 

2. The uniformity of the system so far as applicable is a desir¬ 
able feature, and in general, the method of nomination under this 
law, as contrasted with the former delegate and convention system, 
unregulated and uncontrolled by statute, is an improvement over 
the old method, so far as orderly procedure is concerned, and has 
increased the interest and attendance of voters of the majority 
party at the primaries. 

3. The operation of the system is very expensive to the State, 
expensive to the individual candidates and practically prohibits a 
man without means from aspiring to an important office in a large 
district. The expenditure of large sums of money by candidates 
in furthering the candidacy of an individual by newspaper adver¬ 
tisements, mailing of circulars, posting of lithographs, etc., seems 
to be the only way in which an unknown person can make his 
commendable qualities known to the large mass of people within 
his district, but the heat of the campaign is very likely to result 
in the use of money in such ways as will have a corrupting influ¬ 
ence upon the electorate. 

4. Two primaries and two elections with necessary registration 
and assessment laws were burdensome to voters and party com 
mittees alike and one of these was, by popular vote at the election 
in November, 1909, abolished. 

5. The nomination by the direct method and the election of the 
election officers by popular vote in large cities, is undesirable, and 
better results can be obtained by the appointment of these officers, 
and the primary ticket thus be relieved in a city like Pittsburg 
from the nomination of about 3,500 election officers. 

6. In the six trials of the uniform primary, the majority party 
has succeeded, with the exception of a single notable instance in 
Pittsburg, in the nomination of all its candidates for important 
offices, and has done this without exception in the city of Phil a- 


64 


delphia, and there has been no successful fusion against the ma¬ 
jority party since the act went into operation. 

7. In some instances a large number of candidates has operated 
to dissipate the vote to such an extent as to cause the nomination 
of unknown or undesirable candidates by a small plurality vote; 
this multiplicity of candidates arises in many ways: 

(a) Through the efforts of candidates desiring to reduce 
the vote of their strongest adversary in particular localities. 

(b) Through the personal ambition of individuals to 
secure official position. 

(c) Through the willingness of some men to become can¬ 
didates for the purpose of being induced for a money or 
other consideration to withdraw before the primary. 

(d) Through the practice of certain individuals in placing 
names upon the ticket as a practical joke. 

8. There has been no marked improvement in the character or 
personnel of candidates and public officials selected by this method. 

9. There being no party enrollment law, it is easy for a member 
of one party to vote the primary ticket of another, unless chal¬ 
lenged, and this has been practiced to such a large extent that the 
minority party assists the majority party in nominating its can¬ 
didates, and the majority party frequently names or dictates the 
nomination of the minority party candidates for principal offices; 
thus it is no uncommon thing to find a Republican running as the 
regular candidate of the Democratic party; this results in the 
disintegration of the minority party, and the general result of the 
operation of the system in Philadelphia has been the strengthening 
of the majority party organization and the weakening of the 
minority party. 

10. The names of candidates are placed upon the primary 
tickets in alphabetical order and where there are many candidates 
for a" single office, those at the head of the ticket have a decided 
advantage over those whose names appear further down; it 
appears, however, that the so-called organization candidates have 
succeeded, no matter where their names appear upon the primary 
ticket. 


65 


KANSAS. 

The Law. 

The Primary Election Law of the State of Kansas was passed 
at a special session January 28, 1908, and approved February 1, 
1908. It provides that a primary shall he held on the first Tues¬ 
day of August, 1908, and biennially thereafter, for the nomina¬ 
tion of all candidates to be voted for at the November election, 
and on the first Tuesday of March, 1909, and annually thereafter 
in all cities having 10,000 or more population, for all candidates 
to be voted for at the next ensuing city election. It will thus be 
seen that in counties having no cities, a primary election will 
occur once in two years and in cities of 10,000 or more, there 
will be a primary election every year and two every other year. 
The word “ primary ” under this act means the primary election 
provided for therein. All candidates for elective offices are re¬ 
quired to be nominated by the primary held in accordance with 
the act; or by independent nomination papers signed and filed as 
provided by the existing statutes; the person receiving the greatest 
number of votes at a primary as the candidate of a party for any 
office other than United States Senator, shall be the candidate of 
that party for such office, and his name shall be placed upon the 
official ballot at the ensuing election; if there is a tie vote, the 
boards of canvassers shall determine the tie by lot. The candidate 
for United' States Senator receiving the highest number of votes 
of his party in the greatest number of Representative and Sena¬ 
torial districts of the State shall be the nominee of such party. 
The Primary Act does not apply to special elections to fill 
vacancies, nor to school district meetings for the election of the 
school district officers, nor to city elections where the population is 
less than 10,000. All candidates for office must file nomination 
papers signed by voters, who declare that they intend to support 
the candidate therein named and that they have not signed and 
will not sign any petition or nomination paper for any other per¬ 
son for said office, and there must be attached the affidavit of a 
qualified elector in the community, to the effect that the signers 
are electors of that precinct and that the affiant intends to support 
3 


66 


the candidate therein named. To. entitle such nomination paper 
to be hied it must be signed, if for a State office or for a United 
States Senator, by at least 1 per cent, of the voters of the party 
of such candidate in at least ten counties of the State, and in the 
aggregate not less than 1 per cent, nor more than 10 per cent, of 
the total vote of his party in this State, or by at least 1 per cent, of 
the total vote of his party in each of twenty counties. . 

If for a district office by at least 2 per cent, of the voters of the 
party designated in at least one-tenth of the election precincts and 
in the aggregate not less than 2 per cent, nor more than 10 per 
cent, of the total vote of the party designated in such district. If 
for sub-district office or for county office by at least 3 per cent, of 
the party vote in at least one-fourth of the election precincts of 
such sub-district or county; and in the aggregate not less than 
3 per cent, nor more than 10 per cent, of the total vote of the party 
designated in such sub-district or county. If for a county precinct 
committeeman, by at least 10 per cent, of the party vote in such 
precinct. The basis of' percentage shall be the vote of the party 
for Secretary of State at the last preceding State election. In the 
case of the nomination for city offices, 5 per cent, of the party vote 
in each of at least one-fourth of the election precincts of the city 
is required and in the aggregate not less than 5 per cent, nor more 
than 10 per cent, of the total vote of the party designated in such 
city. There are similar provisions for the nomination for coun- 
cilmen and precinct committeemen. 

The ballots are printed at public expense and the nominations 
are placed thereon alphabetically under the appropriate title of 
each office and party designation. 

The general provisions of the Election Law control the conduct 
of the primaries. There are separate party tickets and also a 
blank ticket, on which shall be printed the titles of the officers to 
be voted for by the electorate at the polling place for which the 
ticket is printed. Each voter is required to ask for the party 
ticket he desires to vote and is entitled to receive it unless chal¬ 
lenged, in which case, he must take an oath to the effect that he 
is a legally qualified voter and a member of and affiliated with 
the party whose ticket he demands, and that he has not signed the 
petition of a member of any other party, who is seeking nomina- 


67 


tion at this primary election, nor of an independent candidate. 
Party organization and government is provided for by the election 
of county precinct committeemen constituting a county committee, 
which shall elect its own chairman, and this chairman becomes 
ex officio a member of the State committee and of each of the 
several party committees of the district within which his county is 
situated. 

The State convention or State party council, as it is called, of 
each party is required to meet at the Capitol on the last Tuesday 
of August after the date on which any primary is held prelim¬ 
inary to any November election, thus making necessary a meeting 
of such party council once in two years. It is made up of the 
candidates for various State offices, for United States Senator, for 
members of the National House of representatives, for the State 
Senate, for the State House of Representatives, the national com¬ 
mitteemen, and the chairman of the county committees of the 
several counties of the State. They are required to formulate the 
State platform of their party, change or alter the party emblem; 
this platform must he formulated and made public not later than 
six o’clock in the afternoon of the day following their adjourn¬ 
ment. Such party council continues for two years and has power 
to call special meetings and perform such other business as may 
be consistent with the provisions of the Primary Act, hut no mem¬ 
ber of such council shall he represented by proxy. 

The expenses necessarily incurred in printing and in conducting 
primaries are paid out of the treasury of the city, county or State, 
the same as in the case of elections. There is no provision requir¬ 
ing the filing of a statement of the expenses of a candidate in 
conducting his canvass for a nomination, hut there is a Corrupt 
Practices Act, which prohibits certain expenditures of money, 
usually prohibited in other states. 

The Kansas Primary Law is also a model of simplicity and 
state-wide in its application, the only exceptions being school 
officers and municipal officers in cities under 10,000. 


68 


The Operation and Results of tiie Primary Law in Kansas. 

The only session of the Committee in the State of Kansas was 
held at the Capitol Building in Topeka. August 16, 1909. 

As hut one State primary has been held under the law, that of ‘ 
August, 1908, the operation and effectiveness of the system could 
not be studied with any great measure of profit. The views of 
witnesses, who attended before the Committee, therefore, are very 
largely of an academic nature, and it was quite easy to see that the 
supporters of Governor Stubbs, the successful candidate for 
Governor at this primary, were enthusiastic in their advocacy of 
the law, and its working, while those who were opposed to him and 
supported his adversary, were also opposed to the use of the direct 
method for the nomination of candidates. 

Hon. C. E. Denton, Secretary of State, presented the Commit¬ 
tee with a copy of his sixteenth biennial report, upon pages 125 
and 126 of which appears a table showing, among other things: 

Population of State, March 1, 1908, 1,656,799. 

Total vote for Governor, all parties, Kovember, 1908, 374,705. 

Total vote for Governor, all parties, at primary election, 
August 4, 1908, 169,634. 

Cost of primary election, August 4, 1908, as reported by county 
clerks, $103,545.68. 

Total tax for State purposes, 1908, $2,203,561.18. 

County of Crawford, population 51,423; Lynn, population 
15,313; Jewel, population 17,619; Morton, 1,050, failed to file 
reports of their expenses. 

The Republican vote cast at the primary in 1908 was approxi¬ 
mately 123,000, and by all other parties, 46,000. 

It will thus he seen that about 45 per cent, of the total vote of 
the State was cast at the primary. And the public cost of the 
primary excluding the cost in the counties mentioned was approxi¬ 
mately sixty cents for each vote cast. 

Mr. Denton explained to the Committee that the public expense 
shown in his report is very much less than the actual expense and 
probably would be considerably less than the actual expense for 
the next primary, for the reason that at this first primary there 
were many people who were particularly anxious to see it made a 
great success and were more or less enthusiastic over it, and they 


69 


donated their services as clerks and judges and that sort of thing 
without pay, but that he did not think they would do it any more 
(999). It will be also understood that in all cities having a popu¬ 
lation of 10,000 or more there will be, in addition to the State 
primary, a municipal primary in March of each year. Practically 
the entire expense of the State government of Kansas is made by 
a direct tax, there being no such indirect taxes as we have in this 
State. It costs more to print the primary ballots than the election 
ballots because the election ballot is a blanket ballot, while the 
primary ballots are separate for each party. 

Samples of the primary ballots of the several parties used at the 
primary preceding the June election and at the primary preceding 
the city election in Kansas City, Kansas, with the vote of each 
candidate entered thereon are returned with this report. The 
blank ballot required by law was not furnished the Committee. 

Four primary tickets, Republican, Democratic, Prohibition and 
Socialist, were used at the primary preceding the June election in 
1908. On the Republican ticket, there were four contestants for 
the three justices of Supreme Court, two for the office of Governor, 
two for Attorney-General, three for State Printer, two for United 
States Senator, two for State Senator in the Fourth District, two 
for Representative in the Eleventh District, two for county 
treasurer, five for register of deeds, four for probate judge, six for 
sheriff, two for coroner, three for superintendent of public instruc¬ 
tion, three for county surveyor, two for judge of the Twenty-Xinth 
Judicial District, two for judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 
two for judge of the Circuit Court, four for clerk of the District 
Court, two for clerk of the Circuit Court, five for county commis¬ 
sioner, two for treasurer of Wyandotte township, and one each for 
the eighteen other offices for which candidates were to be nominated 
by this ticket. The ticket is thirty-eight inches long, has two 
columns, forty offices including presidential electors, for which 
candidates are to be nominated, and ninety names. The voter must 
mark his X mark in the square opposite to the name of each can¬ 
didate whose nomination he desires. An examination of the vote 
cast discloses the fact that the names of the more important officers 
upon the first part of the ticket, for example, Governor, received 
5,173 votes, while the total vote cast for clerk of the Circuit Court, 


70 


in which there was a contest, was 4,787, about 300 less than the 
vote cast for Governor, in Newton precinct of Wyandotte county. 

The primary vote cast for Republican candidates for Governor 
in the same district, as above stated, was 5,173, and the successful 
candidate received at the election, which ensued, 8,477, showing 
that about G1 per cent, of the party vote participated in the Re¬ 
publican primary, provided, of course, all the primary votes were 
Republican. 

Upon the Democratic ticket, there were three contestants for 
the office of Governor at the same primary and the total Democratic 
vote cast at this primary was 1,938, while the successful candidate 
received 9,180 votes at the election which ensued, showing that 
about 21 per cent, of the Democratic votes for Governor voted the 
Democratic primary ticket. It may be said in this connection 
that the observation of the Committee is that the minority party in 
every St^te and locality investigated, takes but little interest in 
the primary election, so far as their own ticket is concerned. A 
more marked difference will appear later in the report. 

In sparsely settled counties, like Wichita county, the cost of the 
primary was $410.50 and the number of voters that participated 
at the primary was 291. In Stanton county, the cost of the 
primary was $333.03 and the number of voters participating was 
132 (960). 

At the primary for the municipal election in Kansas City, 
Kansas, there were four candidates for city attorney, who received 
altogether 4,697 votes. The successful candidate received 1,570 
and his opponents 3,127. There were five candidates for marshal 
of the City Court, total vote cast, 2,892, of which the successful 
candidate received 831 and his opponents 2,061. 

The largest number of primary votes for mayor was 5,405, and 
the number is greatly reduced as you come down the line of can¬ 
didates, showing that more people were interested in the contest 
for mayor than for the minor offices. The smallest vote was 1,537 
for councilman. 

Mr. C. TIowes, who for nine years has been the personal repre¬ 
sentative of the Kansas City Star J watching legislation at Topeka, 
furnished the Committee w T ith some interesting facts concerning 

o 


71 


the 1908 primary, and the cost to individual candidates of con¬ 
ducting their campaigns for the nomination. 

The figures from Governor Stubbs were furnished by his per¬ 
sonal representative, Mr. J. M. Dolley, the present Speaker of the 
House, and also the Bank Commissioner and chairman of the 
State Republican Committee. Mr. Stubbs was the successful can¬ 
didate for Governor and subsequently elected. Senator Long, who 
was defeated by Senator Bristow, furnished a statement showing 
an expense of $6,523.70. Cyrus Leland, defeated candidate for 
Governor, $6,120. W. R. Stubbs, successful candidate, $3,713, 
and Mr. Bristow, the successful candidate for United States Sena¬ 
tor, $3,524.28. These moneys were expended chiefly for postage 
and sending out circulars according to the statement and for print¬ 
ing, and for newspaper advertising, which was practised quite gen¬ 
erally throughout the State. The candidates would buy a whole page 
or half a page on the Sunday before the primary; supplements were 
sent out containing nothing but advertisements of candidates, all 
of which were paid for (966). The advertisements were paid for 
and the papers usually gave little news items as a sort of bonus 
“ just like they do in theatrical advertising ” (966). Democratic 
papers published Republican candidates’ advertisements and in 
some instances, urged Democrats to vote for Republicans in the 
primary, when they wanted a weak Republican where they had a 
strong Democratic candidate opposing him or who would oppose 
him in the election (968). 

There was an effort made through the Democratic newspapers 
looking toward the nomination of weak Republican candidates for 
the purpose of heating them at the polls. The returns from many 
of the counties indicated that Democrats participated to quite an 
extent in Republican primaries. The defeated candidates claimed 
that this was so and the nominated candidates denied it. In some 
places, the returns show a higher Republican vote in the primary 
than the entire Republican vote at the election. It very seldom 
happened that Republicans voted the Democratic primary ticket 
(969). The Republican party being the dominant party, there 
was not much of a campaign in the Democratic party. There were 
two candidates for Governor, hut they did not make much of a 
fight (970). “ It was a Republican scrap all the way through and 
as a result of it, factional differences and bitterness was started 


up, which has continued through the campaign and the general 
election and since ” (970). 

Mr. Stubbs, the successful candidate for Governor, received 
between four and five thousand less votes than the other candidates 
on the Republican ticket. It was evident in nearly every case 
where there were several candidates that the men at the head of 
the list had an advantage. This was so observable that at the ses¬ 
sion of the Legislature in 1909, the Primary Law was amended so 
as to provide for an alternating or rotating system. The names 
of candidates are printed in alphabetical order in one precinct, 
and in the next the first name is dropped to the bottt m and the 
next name comes to the top, the intention being to give each can¬ 
didate substantially the same chance at the head of the ticket. The 
primary campaign is the greater struggle in this State, it being a 
personal and not a party campaign in the majority party. The 
normal Republican majority in the State is about 40,000. It will 
be observed that the party council or State convention does not 
meet under the Primary Act until after the nominations are made, 
so that the individuals, who are candidates before the primary, 
make their own platform, and the successful candidate endeavors 
to have his ideas embodied in the party platform subsequently 
adopted (978). Some of the ideas of the losing candidates were 
also incorporated for the sake of harmony in the platform, upon 
which the successful candidate ran. The platform that is made 
at the party council or convention is intended to express the indi¬ 
vidual views so far as possible of the candidates that are nominated 
at the primary; the candidates at this party council constitute the 
majority. If the party council adopts a platform inconsistent with 
the position taken by the successful candidate, he makes his race 
upon the platform and adds a little of his personal platform to it, 
and to that extent is not responsible to the party machinery for the 
sentiments that he expressed (979). lie amends the platform to 
suit himself. The successful candidate writes no letter of accept¬ 
ance, as he does not obtain the nomination at the hands of the 
party and is not responsible to it, although he expects the party 
organization to support him at the polls. Generally speaking, at 
the last election the party was loyal to the successful candidate in 


73 


the campaign, although there might have been as many as eight or 
ten thousand votes that changed (980). 

The law was enacted for the purpose of getting rid of certain 
leaders called bosses, dictators, etc., in party council, but it has not 
entirely gotten rid of them. “ The head of the ticket does con¬ 
siderable dictating ” (981). 

Before the nomination of Governor Stubbs, he was characterized 
as a reformer, but after his success at the primary in 1908, he 
became the leader or head or boss of the Republican State organi¬ 
zation. The system merely operates to substitute one party boss 
for another (981). 

The newspapers probably have more influence in a primary 
campaign than the candidates themselves. The Kansas City Star, 
Topeka Capitol and Topeka State Journal have general circula¬ 
tion throughout the State and if these papers supported the can¬ 
didacy of a particular individual, a man who may he opposed by 
these papers would not have much of a show, “ so that the news¬ 
papers become in a sense the bosses of the situation ” (982). 

To a considerable extent during the primary campaign, there 
was bitterness and accusations and counter accusations made 
through the newspapers. The Primary Law, however, is popular 
here and that method of campaign is regarded as dignified and a 
satisfactory method of selecting wise and competent and unselfish 
public servants. A man selected in that way will probably not be 
as friendly to the interest of those who opposed him as he will 
toward those who supported him loyally. It is not a serious 
prejudice, but he realizes that they were opposed to him and they 
are now probably, and he is not as friendly to them as he is with 
the papers that supported him. Such papers get no patronage 
from the public administration. 

United States Senator Bristow, one of the Senators that voted 
against the Payne Tariff Bill in the present Congress, received the 
endorsement at the primary and was subsequently elected. Cur¬ 
tice, the other Senator from Kansas, was nominated and elected 
under the old system and voted for the Tariff Bill. Governor 
Stubbs is the only new State officer that was nominated under the 
primary system, the old State officers were simply renominated. 

The chief objection to the Primary Law is that the voters do not 


come out and they are not able to keep the Democrats from voting 
in the Republican primary. There is a movement on foot to adopt 
the Des Moines commission plan for the government of Topeka, 
and this system has been adopted in Leavenworth, Independence, 
Wichita, Kansas City and Atchison; Topeka, Coffeeville and 
Salina are agitating it. 

Mr. Ilowes thought that the effect of the primary in Kansas was 
the selection of better candidates and more capable men, but that 
they had not had sufficient experience to know what might result 
ultimately. 

It is to be noted that only one new State officer, the Governor, 
was so elected. 

Prior to the adoption of the Primary Law, there was a law that 
permitted local regulation of primaries under the delegate and 
convention system, but it was not operative (993). 

The population of Kansas is approximately 1,600,000 and the 
voting population from 375,000 to 400,000. The percentage of 
illiteracy is very small, being less than 3 per cent. The center of 
population is approximately about 100 miles west of the east line 
of the State. 

Kansas City contains about 100,000 people and there are but 
few other large towns, many of which have recently adopted the 
DesMoines commission system of government. One reason given 
for the excellent results of this system in the city of Galveston, 
Texas, is the fact that there is a poll tax of $3 as a necessary con¬ 
dition to the exercise of the franchise; this operates to prevent 
about two-fifths of the population from voting and gets rid of the 
ignorant and vicious element, who will not pay the necessary tax. 

At the last session of the Legislature, the Primary Law was 
amended so as to make it not operative in cities under 10,000 
instead of 5,000 as originally enacted. 

There are 105 counties and 165 members of the lower house of 
the Legislature and forty Senators. The compensation to members 
of the Legislature is $3 per day and mileage not to exceed fifty 
days for the biennial session and if a special session is called, they 
can draw pay for not to exceed thirty days. 

As an illustration of the participation of the voters in the 
primary of August 4, 1908, in, the rural districts as compared with 


their participation in the cities, the official primary election re¬ 
turns and the official election returns of Dickinson county, Kansas, 
will be of interest: 

In the city of Abilene, this county, the Republican candidates 
for Governor received at the primary 535 votes, and at the elec¬ 
tion, 523, but in the entire county of Dickinson, the Republican 
candidates received 1,998 votes at the primary, and at the election, 
Mr. Stubbs, the successful candidate, received 2,889, or about 69 
per cent, of the Republican vote in the county. It is claimed that 
the large number of Republican primary votes in the city of 
Abilene is due to the voting by Democrats of Republican primary 
tickets. 

The comparison of the vote cast at the primary and at the elec¬ 
tion in a. few of the rural towns, in this county, will be profitable: 

The town of Union cast at the election for the Republican can¬ 
didate for Governor, thirty-five votes; the same town cast for both 
Republican candidates at the primary, eleven votes. The town of 
Willowdale cast at the election for Mr. Stubbs, fifty-one votes; the 
same town cast for both Republican candidates at the primary, 
nine votes. The town of Hayes cast for Mr. Stubbs at the election 
fifty-one votes and for both candidates at the primary, twenty-three 
votes. The town of Fragrant Hill cast for Mr* Stubbs at the 
election, forty-three votes, and for both Republican candidates at 
the primary, thirteen votes. 

This proportion seems to be substantially the same throughout 
the rural districts. It will also be remembered that this was the 
first primary under the new law and that there was a very strenu- 
out contest between Senator Long and Mr. Bristow for the United 
States Senatorship. 

Governor Stubbs testified that he was a candidate nearly one 
year before the primary and conducted an active campaign by 
sending out literature from his headquarters in Topeka and par¬ 
ticularly by visiting the various counties and making public 
speeches in ninety of the 105 counties, and in some of those 
counties, making five or six public speeches. 

Mr. Leland, his Republican opponent, conducted his campaign 
on similar lines, and Senator Long and Mr. Bristow conducted 
similar campaigns, so that in the Republican party there was a 


fierce contest for several months before the primary of August 4, 
1908. 

Mr. A. Cain, connected with the State Journal, a daily paper 
published at Topeka, listened to the testimony of Mr. Howes, and 
stated that Mr. Howes reflected his sentiments, except that he be¬ 
lieved the convention system would operate in Kansas to select 
better officers for the public service. 

He mentioned the fact that the State was under Populist con¬ 
trol for about twelve years, and at one time there was a Prohibition 
Governor, Mr. St. John. The Populist party, he said, was as¬ 
similated by both parties; that is to say, the Populist party has 
been assimilated by the Democrats and the Pepublicans have taken 
its principles; the Pepublicans had the issues and the Democrats 
the men (996). 

It has long been the custom in Kansas to assess public officers 
for general election campaign expenses. The rule has been to 
assess the chief officers 10 per cent, of their salary and the clerks 
2% per cent. This has been a common practice throughout the 
State by the dominant party and there is no law prohibiting it. 

Hon. C. E. Denton, Secretary of State, verified the statements 
contained in his report heretofore referred to and expressed him¬ 
self strongly as opposed to the new Primary Law, commenting 
particularly upon the expense to the State and to candidates. A 
large portion of the expense is received by the newspapers, who are 
almost without exception favorable to the law. The personal ad¬ 
vertising of the candidates and the public printing necessitated by 
the law give the newspapers a very large source of income, which 
under the convention system they did not receive. That it was 
practically impossible for a candidate to succeed who did not have 
the influence of the large newspapers with him. He also thought 
that the operation of the law tended to favor to a great extent 
citizens residing in large communities as against an aspirant of a 
rural community; and if a man had no money and could not bor¬ 
row it, he might better never start a campaign for a State office, 
or for any office requiring a personal appeal to the voters located 
in a large territory (1012). 

Mr. D. M. Mulvane, a prominent attorney of the city of Topeka 
and the Kansas member of the Republican Rational Committee 


for the past twelve years, took a position similar to that of the 
Secretary of State. 

He had also been a member of the State Committee. One of 
his principal objections to the system was that it built up factional 
differences in the party and would ultimately disintegrate parties 
and party organization and loyalty to party control. He added 
that he had talked with every member of the National Republican 
Committee from the states in which direct primary laws had been 
adopted, and that without exception, they made the same criticism 
that it had a tendency to disorganize the party. He also objected 
to the plurality system and said that there was considerable dis¬ 
cussion for the adoption of an amendment looking toward a second 
and a third choice. 

In this connection, it may be added that at the last session of the 
Kansas Legislature, a bill was introduced and urged with con¬ 
siderable force making it compulsory upon every voter at a primary 
to express as many choices as there were Candidates for a particu¬ 
lar office, and that these choices should be expressed by numerals 
in the inverse order of the choice, that is to say, if there were five 
candidates, the first choice would be expressed by the numeral 5, 
second bv the numeral 4, and so on. The bill then provides for a 
count of these numerals and a mathematical calculation in order 
to work out a theoretical majority sentiment. The gentleman 
advocating this bill has sent a copy of it to the Committee, with 
the request that its provisions be incorporated in whatever primary 
law may be enacted in this State. 

The Committee was greatly favored by the voluntary appearance 
of Hon. W. R. Stubbs, Governor of the State, and Hon. Cyrus 
Leland, his Republican opponent in the primary of August 4, 
1908. 

Governor Stubbs was a member of the Legislature at the time 
of the enactment of this law and opposed a bill intended to regulate 
primaries, retaining the delegate and convention system, for the 
reason, as he stated substantially, that if such a law were passed, 
it would be more difficult to pass a direct nomination bill, which 
he and many friends were contending for. He introduced the bill 
and after two regular sessions it was passed at a special session in 
January, 1908, with the first primary to be held in August of the 


78 


same year. Before the passage of this act, he became a candidate 
for Governor and conducted a very vigorous campaign during all 
of this year before the primary against his republican opponent. 

It is impossible in this report, to give at length the arguments 
made by Governor Stubbs before the Committee in favor of the 
Kansas Primary Law, which he expressed himself as very proud 
of, and regarded it as one of the most important pieces of legisla¬ 
tion for nfany years. His evidence will be found at pages 1027 
to 1068 of the record. 

The Republicans of Kansas are divided into tw r o factions, which 
they call “ Progressives ” and “ Conservatives.” Mr. Stubbs was 
identified with Mr. Bristow and it seems that Mr. Leland was also 
identified with Mr. Bristow and against Senator Long. The 
political manager of the campaign of Mr. Stubbs was Mr. Dolley, 
fvho became the chairman of the Republican State Committee, the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives in Kansas, and Bank 
Commissioner. It is claimed by the Governor’s opponents that 
there is simply a substitution of political bosses in the State, the 
Governor being now supreme in his faction of the party. Whether 
there is any ground for such charge can be best determined, per¬ 
haps, by quoting a few words from his testimony at pages 1053, 
1054: “ With this law, there has been a general movement here 

In Kansas that has to operate the government and party manage- 
aient and public affairs of the State from a public point of view, 
';o cut out every little self interest that was common under the old 
spoils system of politics. There are mighty few men that are get¬ 
ting any special privileges or special advantages in Kansas under 
)ur present form of government. And I am very much pleased 
indeed, with the Primary Election Law. Of course, we have not 
tried it very long and it may develop weak spots in it that we don’t 
know about. * * * Q. Governor, speaking about the spoils 

system, tell us as to whether the friends of the successful candidates 
get jobs or not, or doesn’t that make any difference? A. Well, 
now, since I have been Governor, I have appointed a good many 
men to office, and I have been under the impression that fellows 
who believed in the things I advocated and stood for were really 
the best fellows for office.” 

It is a well known fact that no opponent of the Governor in any 
of the counties of the State has received an appointment, and that 


such appointments as were within the power of the Governor 
have gone largely to the men who organized to further his cam¬ 
paign for the nomination in the various counties of the State. 

Governor Stubbs favored the amendment made to the law at the 
last session of the Legislature by which the so-called “ Rotating 
System ” of placing names upon the primary ballot, where there 
were several candidates, because he said his name began with 
“ S ” and under the law as it was, the man whose name began 
with “ A ” had a distinct advantage. 

Mr. Cyrus Leland, mentioned above, has been in politics in 
Kansas since its organization as a State, and spoke generally in 
favor of the Kansas law. He said that he advocated it and ear¬ 
nestly sought its passage for the express purpose of getting rid of 
Senator Long and believed it to be a good thing, because it had 
accomplished that object. “ Q. But aside, Mr. Leland, from hav¬ 
ing brought about the defeat of Mr. Long, what evils do you think 
it has corrected? A. Well, it has laid him on the shelf and that 
class of men ought to be laid down on the shelf. Q. I know, but 
aside from that? A. There is more like him, some of his own 
gang and that is a good thing, I think. It accomplished that ” 
(1085). 

Mr. Leland did not see how a man could conduct a campaign 
for the nomination of Governorship or State office upon $4,000 or 
anything like it. He thought that a man ought to have more than 
one term, if he stands the Primary Law (1087). 

Mr. J. H. Holley, Speaker of the present House and Bank 
Commissioner of the State of Kansas, spoke as an earnest advocate 
of the law (1090). It seems that in the Senate at the time of its 
passage, the vote was quite close; there were only three Democratic 
members of the Senate, one of whom supported the bill. The con¬ 
troversy was practically between Republicans. Mr. Dolley thought 
the Republican party as a party is in better condition in Kansas 
than it has been for the past several years, although the personnel 
of the organization has changed since the last controversy. He 
spoke along the sames lines of Governor Stubbs, and advised that 
candidates for nomination should file statements of their expenses, 
the same as candidates for election. He thought that the Demo¬ 
cratic party was badly demoralized; the strengthening of the Re¬ 
publican party naturally weakened the Democratic party. 


80 


Mr. Frank G. Drenning, a prominent resident of Topeka, 
deprecated the participation of Democrats in Republican primaries 
and said that there is absolutely no doubt that a well organized 
effort among the Democrats to vote the Republican ticket could 
have changed the nomination of United States Senator without 
any trouble whatever. He believed that the system would be bet¬ 
ter if they had a second and third choice. 

Obseuvations on the Kansas System. 

As stated at the outset, it is extremely difficult to draw any very 
valuable lessons from the one test of the Primary Law in Kansas. 
There are a few facts, however, which were made quite prominent 
in the course of our investigation: 

/ 1. The law is generally popular and it probably could not be 
■ repealed at the present time, although amendments for the purpose 
of obviating the plurality nominations are being urged and a more 
strict party enrollment is generally believed in. 

2. The cities of the State are quite generally adopting the Des 
Moines system of government and doing away with any form 
of primary, caucus or party nomination in municipal affairs. 

3. The system is State-wide and includes substantially all the 
officers to be nominated in the State, district, county and town¬ 
ship, so that the number of names appearing upon any primary 
ticket because of the number of elective offices is so very great 
that it is quite impossible for the average voter to exercise any 
intelligent discrimination except upon the head of the ticket. 

4. The percentage of participation in the cities and towns in 
the majority party was very large, and in the rural districts was 
very small, and the percentage of participation on the part of the 
minority party was also exceedingly small. 

5. Under this system, there is no opportunity for the minority 
party to await the nomination of the majority party and then 
select a candidate, who, either because of his locality or some other 
peculiar strength, can oppose the majority candidate with any 
reasonable probability of success. The minority party having as a 
rule no contests for the nomination are obliged to file the names 


81 


of their candidates so many days before the primary that the 
Republican candidates know exactly whom they will have to oppose 
while they are carrying on the primary campaign. 

6. The pa^ty organization or machine is disintegrated and there 
is substituted the personal machine of the successful candidate 
or the head of the ticket. This machine is maintained by the 
appointment to public position of the supporters of the success¬ 
ful candidate and furnishes him with a strong organization inter¬ 
ested in securing his renomination and continuance in office. 

7. If a State-wide direct primary nomination system is to be 
adopted, the Kansas Law is as simple and perfect as any, if the 
rights of the parties are better safeguarded by a party enrollment, 
and if candidates’ expenses are limited and they are required to 
file an itemized statement of their expenses after the primary 
election. 

8. There is no opportunity under this law, except in the minor¬ 
ity party, for the office to seek the man, but the successful candi¬ 
date must be active, aggressive, and a candidate who is willing 
to conduct a vigorous campaign in his own behalf against mem¬ 
bers of his own party, making his own platform for the purpose 
with such promises of reform and popular legislation as will con¬ 
vince the people that he can be of greater service to them than 
his adversary. 

A central bureau of information is organized for" the distribu¬ 
tion of printed matter and committees organize in all the counties 
of the State for the furtherance of his personal campaign. The 
conduct of such a campaign, in our opinion, does not tend to 
cement the party membership around party principles that may 
be formulated by the party organization in convention assembled. 


82 


IOWA. 

The Law. 

The Iowa Primary Election Law was passed in 1907 and the 
first primary was held under it on the first Tuesday after the 
first Monday in June, 1908, so that the Iowa experience under 
a statutory primary law is substantially the same as that of Kansas. 
The law provides that it shall be held biennially after the first 
primary for the nomination of candidates for such offices as are 
to be filled at the general election in November next ensuing, 
except candidates for the offices of judges of the Supreme, Dis¬ 
trict and Superior Courts. It also applies, for the purpose of 
ascertaining the sentiment of the voters in the respective parties, 
to United States Senator, and in presidential years includes elec¬ 
tors. With the exception of the provisions relating to party affilia¬ 
tion, the nomination of judges, the provisions for challenge and 
some minor changes in the nomination paper, including an affidavit 
to be sworn to by the candidate, on whose behalf the petition is filed, 
and also excepting the requirement that a candidate for a county, 
district or State office must receive not less than thirty-five per 
cent, of the votes cast by the parties for such office to entitle him 
to a nomination, the general provisions of law are substantially 
the same as the Kansas law. 

At the first primary each voter received his party ticket called 
for and the clerk thereupon entered his declaration of party affilia¬ 
tion, substantially the same as required under the Luce Law in 
Massachusetts. Thereafter he becomes listed on the poll books as 
a member of that particular party and while residing in the same 
voting precinct, need not declare again his party affiliation, unless 
he desires to change it; but in case he desires to change, he may, 
not less than ten days prior to the date of any primary, file a 
written declaration with the County Auditor stating his change 
of party affiliation, and first voters and those who have changed 
their residence affiliate on primary day upon application to the 
election officers. If a voter is challenged, he may take the oath 
that he has in good faith changed his party affiliation and desires 
to be a member of-party, and then becomes entitled 



83 


to vote the ticket he*calls for. The names of the candidates are 
placed upon the ticket in alphabetical order, but the law as origi¬ 
nally passed was amended at the last session of the Legislature by 
adopting the rotating system, so that the names of candidates do 
not appear at all times in the same position upon the ticket, but 
are rotated from top to' bottom in accordance with the rule fixed 
by statute. This was done after the primary of June, 1908. 

The County Committee is elected at the primary made up of 
delegates according to a ratio adopted by the party County Central 
Committee and these delegates are required to meet in convention 
on the third Saturday following the primary election. The con¬ 
duct of the convention is controlled by statutory rules, and after 
organization, is authorized to make nomination of the candidates 
for the party for any office to be filled by the voters of the county 
when no candidate for such office has been nominated at the pre¬ 
ceding primary election. This would be the case where no candi¬ 
date received thirty-five per cent, of the vote. This convention 
also nominates candidates for the office of Judge of the District 
Court in counties comprising one judicial district and selects 
delegates to State and district conventions and elects a member 
of the party Central Committee of these districts. 

In Senatorial, Judicial and Congressional districts composed 
of more than one county, district conventions are likewise held 
and with like authority; it may adopt party platforms, but is not 
required to do so. 

The State convention is composed of delegates chosen by the 
county convention in the manner above stated and it also has the 
power to nominate for State offices, when no nomination was 
made at the primary, and also nominates candidates for office of 
Judge of the Supreme Court. Ko proxies are allowed at any of 
these conventions, but the delegates present from a county may 
cast the full vote thereof. The State convention is required to 
formulate and adopt the State platform of the party it represents 
and to elect a State Central Committee. 

It will thus be seen that in this respect the Iowa law differs 
from the Kansas law in that the State convention in Kansas is 
made up of the county chairmen and the candidates for all offices, 


84 


who have been nominated at the primary, •and they adopt the 
platform. 

The provisions of the act govern the nominations of candidates 
by the political parties for all offices to be filled by direct vote 
of the people in cities of first class and cities nnder special charter 
having a population of over 15,000, unless they have adopted some 
other plan of city government. 

The expenses of the primary election are borne one-half by the 
county and one-half by the State, the Board of Supervisors being 
required to audit the entire expense and certify to the executive 
council. 

Every candidate for any office to be voted for at a primary is 
required within ten days after the holding of primary to file a 
detailed statement of his expenses. The statement must also show 
from whom the money was received and purposes for which paid, 
etc. 

The Operation and Results of the Primary Law in Iowa. 

Prior to the enactment of the Primary Election Law, many 
counties in the State of Iowa, under party rules and regulations, 
had a system of more or less direct nomination, some counties and 
districts nominating by direct vote and others electing delegates. 
A majority, however, rather than a plurality was usually required 
to nominate. 

There was no urgent demand throughout the State for the enact¬ 
ment of a uniform primary law, as the methods under which 
the parties within themselves were nominating their candidates 
for office were quite generally satisfactory. One witness stated 
to the Commission that the Legislature adopted the new law be¬ 
cause other States were enacting such laws. 

Shortly prior, however, to the enactment of this law, a very 
disorderly and disgraceful campaign for the nomination of Con¬ 
gressman in the Des Moines district, the Seventh, was conducted, 
and attracted State-wide attention. • It is told that a band of 
twenty-five or thirty enthusiasts went from one precinct caucus 
to another and voted for the delegates favoring the candidate of 
their choice. Charges and counter charges of bribery were made 
and to this one proceeding, more than any other, is attributable 
the enactment of the Uniform Primary Law of Iowa. The Con- 


85 




stitution of Iowa, like Pennsylvania, makes uniform legislation 
necessary. 

The first primary election held under the act, June 2, 1908, 
was of unusual interest, because of the fact that it was a presiden¬ 
tial year, and there was a sharp contest for the office of United 
States senator between Senator Allison and Governor Cummins. As 
is known, Senator Allison was successful, but died before his elec¬ 
tion by the Legislature, and at the general election Governor Cum¬ 
mins, by special act, again contended for the popular approval 
of his candidacy against Mr. Lacey, and was successful. 

All State officers had to be nominated at the June primary; 
the consequence was that a very large Republican vote came out 
to the primary. ✓ 

Some of the figures from the Iowa Official Register for 1909 
kindly furnished by Mr. W. C. Hayward, Secretary of State, will 
be of interest: 

The Republican primary vote for Governor was 181,863. 

The Republican vote for Governor at the election, 356,980, 
showing that the Republican primary vote for Governor was about 
seventy per cent, of the vote cast at the election. 

The Democratic vote for Governor was, 50,065. 

The Democratic vote for Governor at the election was 196,929, 
showing that the Democratic primary vote was but twenty-five 
per cent, of the vote cast at the election. A similar comparison 
is made in a few of the Congressional districts taken at random. 

In the Third district the Republican primary vote for Congress¬ 
man was sixty-four per cent, of the vote at the election, while the 
Democratic primary vote was but nineteen per cent, of the vote 
polled at the election. 

In the Fourth Congressional district, there was a contest for 
nomination in the Democratic primary, but the vote cast was only 
twenty-five per cent, of that polled at the election. 

In the Fifth Congressional district, sixty-eight per cent, of the 
Republican vote polled at the election was cast at the primary 
and only seventeen per cent, of the Democratic vote. 

The Sixth district is very close and there was a contest in the 
Republican primary, but none in the Democratic; the former cast 
fifty-seven per cent of its election vote and the latter twenty-seven 
per cent. 


86 


An examination of the primary returns will disclose the fact 
that a much larger percentage of the vote is cast at the primaries 
in the cities and large towns than in the rural districts, the condi¬ 
tions being quite similar to those found in the State of Kansas. 

The new Primary Law of Iowa has its friends and staunch 
supporters, not so much on account of what it has accomplished 
as for what they hope it will accomplish, when they have had 
sufficient time to give it a fair trial. 

There are also prominent citizens who oppose it upon principle 
and find little in it to commend. 

The Committee was very fortunate in getting in touch with 
many of these citizens, some of whom might be regarded as poli¬ 
ticians in the better sense and many of whom had no political 
aspirations. 

Mr. Lafayette Young, editor and proprietor of the Des Moines 
Daily Capitol, and a State Senator for about twelve years, ex¬ 
pressed himself generally as favoring the law. It was he who said 
that the Iowa Primary Law was more due to disturbances in the 
way of unfair voting and unfair action of the election judges, and 
things of that nature in the city of Des Moines, than to any or all 
other influences combined, and in that connection referred to the 
charge that many voters participated in different primaries. This 
was due largely to the lack of local control. He thought that their 
system of enrollment was imperfect and said that there were strong 
objections to making it any more drastic, the criticism being that 
it deprived the voter of his constitutional right to affiliate with 
any party of his choice at the time of the primary. “ You might,” 
said he, “ not always need this system, but when you did need it, 
it would be handy to have; and it will ultimately tend toward the 
destruction of political parties, in my judgment. But the country 
has seen many times the destruction of political parties without 
any danger to it” (1120). Mr. Young expressed his belief in 
government by parties and in explanation of his statement that the 
Primary Law was still desirable, notwithstanding it tended to the 
destruction of political parties, he said he meant “ different align¬ 
ments and reorganization of parties and not destruction ” (1120). 
It raises up factional differences and divisions in the party itself 
and has an effect on party organization, as it enables the minority 


.87 

party to nominate without regard to availability; while the ma¬ 
jority party makes its nominations out of strife, as the result of 
strife, the minority makes its as a result of harmony through get¬ 
ting together. The minority party takes advantage of the strife 
in the majority party to defeat the majority party at the election 
sometimes. In the campaign for United States Senator u we had 
as hot a debate throughout the State as we ever held in a contest 
against the other party.” “ It gives more power to the press, 
which is not objectionable to. newspaper men, who feel that they, 
ought to run the country anyway. I speak of that — I am a news¬ 
paper man.” * * * “ Among other criticisms, the primary 

system gives the candidate an opportunity to make a great many 
promises to the voters, in the excitement of his search for honors, 
and he takes advantage of the situation. I mean that he becomes 
sensational and enthusiastic in telling the 1 dear people ’ what he 
will do. Of course, we have always had that more or less between 
the parties, but have never had it as a family affair until we had 
our primary” (1122). 

Mr. Young also condemned the long ballot and numerous can¬ 
didates and said that it was impossible for the average voter to 
exercise any discretion on more than two or three offices. The 
results showed that there was a large falling off in the vote as you 
went down the line of candidates and also where there were numer¬ 
ous candidates that those who headed the ticket had a distinct 
advantage, so much so that the law had since been amended as 
above stated. 

The judges of courts were excepted from the Primary Law for 
the purpose of keeping the office out of politics as far as possible. 
There is no opportunity under the primary of distributing the 
ticket geographically. 

Mr. Harvey Ingham, editor of a morning and afternoon daily 
known as the Register and Leader, and the afternoon Tribune, at 
one time postmaster of Des Moines, and Regent of the State Uni¬ 
versity, coincided in his views with those expressed by Colonel 
Young, and particularly emphasized the disgraceful contest in the 
Seventh Congressional District, in which Des Moines is situated, 
as one of the reasons for the adoption of the Primary Law. The 
change in Iowa was from an unregulated and absolutely unlegal¬ 
ized method of nominations to a legalized method (1144). 


It will also be noted that there was adopted simultaneously with 
the Primary Law, the Corrupt Practices Act, and at about the 
same time the Personal Registration Act in cities. 

Iowa is an agricultural State, and there is only about 2 per 
cent, of illiteracy. The largest city is Des Moines with 75,000 
and three or four other cities with twenty or thirty thousand, with 
almost no foreign element. Mr. Ingham also said that there was 
an undue advantage to the man whose name begins with u A,” 
where the names appear upon the ballot in alphabetical order. He 
strongly advocated the elimination of so many elective offices and 
said that it w r as impossible for any man to make an intelligent dis¬ 
crimination. In the recent State election, the attention of the 
whole State was centered upon United States Senator and Gov¬ 
ernor, with local contests for Congressmen; the other State officers 
escaped attention. 

He strongly advocated “ leadership ” and distinguished this 
from so-called machine organization (1153). He thought it would 
be impossible for the successful candidate to build up a machine 
upon the patronage principle by appointing to public office those 
who supported him at the primary. 

The following witnesses made voluntary statements before the 
Committee, condemning the law upon principle and calling the 
attention of the Committee to its alleged failure to accomplish any 
good in the State of Iowa. Hone of these gentlemen were poli¬ 
ticians in the sense of being candidates for office, but all of them 
were interested as citizens of Des Moines and of the State of Iowa 
in political conditions. These men are Mr. Charles A. Finkbine, 
a lumber dealer connected with the Wisconsin Lumber Company; 
Robert Fullerton, also a lumberman, and president of the Civic 
League of the City of Des Moines, and* recently a member of a 
committee that went to Washington as a tariff expert before the 
Committee on Ways and Means while they were framing the 
Payne Tariff Bill; James B. Weaver, Jr., a lawyer; Sydney 
Foster, life insurance agent, and connected with the park system of 
Des Moines; Mr. Jewett, business man; Janies C. Davis, an 
attorney; J. L. Powell, whose business does not appear in the 
record. 

Mr. Finkbine stated: “ We had just as good people, just as 
honest officials then and we had just as good people and just as 


89 


honest State and county officials under the old caucus system of 
electing our officers as we have had since the adoption of this new 
Primary Law.” It is very expensive to make a State campaign; 
the average voter knows how he wants to vote for one or two offices 
and for the rest of them he is absolutely ignorant and votes for the 
first man he comes to. Mr. Finkbine advocated the safeguarding 
of the primaries and conventions by law and deprecated the appar¬ 
ent fact in the last State primary that many Democrats voted the 
Republican primary ticket. Lie stated the fact that the two Repub¬ 
lican candidates for United States Senator who were voted for at 
the same time as the general election received in the aggregate in 
Polk county, in which the city of Des Moines is situated, 2,600 
more votes than the Taft electors received at the election held the 
same day, which fact appears from the records of the Secretary 
of State’s office. So far as he could observe, it has not changed the 
spoils system a particle. The man who succeeds distributes the 
patronage to his friends. Referring to the Des Moines commission 
system, Mr. Finkbine said it was in no way related to the direct 
system; that the intention was to eliminate national party politics 
absolutely from domination in local affairs. He stated, however, 
an interesting instance of newspaper influence in the introduction 
of the Des Moines system. A self appointed committee of 500 
representative citizens from all business and professional lines 
worked out the plan of government and in order to make it a great 
success the first year, suggested the names of five prominent citi¬ 
zens, who would be unwilling to become candidates or make a per¬ 
sonal canvass for the position, as members of council for the first 
year. Hot one of them was nominated and when asked how that 
happened, he replied, “ Too much ITarvey Ingham and Lafe 
Young,” referring, of course, to the prominent newspapers edited 
by these gentlemen. He said that a self seeking campaign fol¬ 
lowed, carried on by candidates, who themselves sought the offices, 
something after the experience of Boston in the recent city elec¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Fullerton concurred in the views expressed by Mr. Fink¬ 
bine and added that the new law had proven very profitable to the 
newspapers in the matter “ of public printing of private virtues.” 

Mr. Weaver concurred in a general way with the statements of 


90 


Mr. Finkbine and Mr. Fullerton, but said that the law was too 
recent to form any positive conclusion as to its merits or demerits. 

Mr. Foster was very positive in bis conviction that tbe direct 
primary method is calculated to disorganize tbe very best elements 
of tbe political party. He said that opposing candidates in tbe 
Republican party made a practice of sending postal cards to Demo¬ 
crats throughout tbe State urging them to vote for certain indi¬ 
vidual Republican candidates in tbe primary, and advising them 
that it was nobody’s business to what party they belonged. This 
postal card system was very general and it bad a tendency to 
break down the regard tbe people bad for their own political organ¬ 
ization. He claimed that there was no State in tbe Union better 
managed than tbe State of Iowa; that tbe primary system would 
keep burning tbe embers of discontent and distrust and that while 
he was no pessimist, he regarded tbe vote of tbe Republican party 
in Iowa as very doubtful because of its breaking up into factions 
and discord as a campaign arises. 

Mr. Jewett simply concurred in tbe statements of Mr. Finkbine 
and Mr. Foster. 

Mr. Davis stated that bis objection to the Primary Law is that 
it entirely falls short of its alleged purpose, in that it precludes 
every sort of independent and intelligent action by tbe individual 
voter. In tbe last campaign he bad bad occasion to travel about 
tbe State at various points where there were assemblies of repre¬ 
sentatives, while the campaign was going on, and as a matter of 
curiosity, asked citizens present to state tbe names of principal 
candidates for the leading State offices, for which they were ex¬ 
pected to vote at tbe primary, and that it is not exaggeration to 
say that unless they bad a candidate in their political locality 
not one man in twenty could name the different candidates that 
they were expected to vote for, or qualifications, special or other¬ 
wise, which each of the conflicting candidates had for office. The 
attention of all was directed to the candidates for Governor and 
United States Senator, but as to the others upon the State ticket, 
he could not tell who he was voting for or whether he was voting 
for any particular one, and therefore, voted for the first name 
upon the ticket, and the lucky man in that position is nominated. 
As an illustration he spoke of the primary ticket in Polk county 
in which Des Moines is located. The ballot contained more than 


91 


150 names and it was an absolute impossibility for the local 
people in Polk county to select with any sort of discrimination 
or individual judgment the various candidates. “ The purpose 
of the law,” said he, “ is not accomplished in that a State-wide 
primary covers too large a territory for the individual voter to 
inform himself so that he can vote intelligently and make a special 
selection of a large number of candidates that come from 
all over the State.” For these reasons, he favored the 
convention with legally elected delegates. If the territory 
was increased the difficulties mentioned would be multi¬ 
plied and increased (1192, 1193). “In a convention sys¬ 
tem, some sort of fair division of candidates over the State 
can be made, but in the primary there is no opportunity for a 
concert of‘action” (1194.) 

Mr. Davis regarded the State of Iowa as an ideal State in which 
to test the efficiency of such a law, as the population was only about 
2,300,000, very evenly divided over the State. Substantially no 
manufacturing industries, practically all farmers. 

Hon. W. C. Hayward, Secretary of State, before referred to, 
also furnished the Committee with a statement of the public ex¬ 
pense of conducting the first primary, in detail by counties. 
This statement is filed with the exhibits. The total amount for 
the first primary was $164,000.12. The law has been changed 
since the enactment of the Primary Law so that hereafter the 
counties pay the entire expense. 

He also furnished a few sworn reports of campaign expenses in 
the primary election of June, 1908. The largest amount shown 
is $4,329.83 by Mr. Good, nominated for Congress in the Fifth 
district. The successful candidates for Congress expended from 
$1,000 to $4,000. The personal expenses of candidates for Gover¬ 
nor were very small. Mr. Carroll placed his expenses at $797.22, 
Mr. Garratt at $1,177.50 and Mr. Hamilton at $929.37. These 
candidates are all Republican candidates. Sample primary bal¬ 
lots were also furnished. 

The largest part of the public expense, said Mr. Hayward, was 
paid to the newspapers, and they also received large sums from 
candidates for personal advertising. 

Mr. Hayward thought that Iowa had not had enough experience 
under the Primary Law to determine altogether its full benefits 


92 


or many of its advantages. One defect noticeable to all was the 
inability of the voter to discriminate where so large a number of 
candidates were upon the ticket, but he thought that that had been 
obviated to some extent by the adoption of the rotating system in 
placing names upon the ticket, which does not help the voter to 
express his choice intelligently, but gives to all candidates the 
same advantage of position. 

'Mr. A. U. Swan, Assistant Secretary of the Executive Council, 
gave some figures as to the expenses of conducting a primary, cor¬ 
roborating the statement given by the Secretary of State, and com¬ 
puted from these figures that there was practically $120,000 of the 
amount paid to the printers. 

Hon. W. L. Eaton, one of the Railroad Commissioners, a resi¬ 
dent of Osage, Mitchell county, Iowa, appeared before the Com¬ 
mission and stated in substance that there are without doubt 
advantages in the Primary Law, but there are also inherent defects 
in the whole theory of the Primary Law. He said that while he 
belonged to what might be fairly termed a faction in Iowa, which 
was very much in favor of the Primary Law, he had never been 
in favor of it, and his mental attitude now was one rather of tolera¬ 
tion and consent on account of circumstances which have arisen 
rather than enthusiasm about it. Mr. Eaton lives in a county that 
is entirely rural, having no cities. He said that they had never 
had any difficulties or abuses of the convention system in his 
county. It had always worked well. He had been interested in 
politics for quite a number of years as a member of the Legis¬ 
lature and Speaker of the House, and had observed the workings 
of both the convention and primary systems to quite a considerable 
extent. “ I believe,” said he, “ there is an inherent defect in the 
entire primary system and I dislike to even say this in public, 
because, as I say, on account of circumstances, I have been com¬ 
pelled to bring my mind to assent to it and consent to it rather 
than any other way” (1229). 

“ Every State officer, who had any contest, whose name appeared 
first on the ballot was nominated.” “ They are all elegant gentle¬ 
men and all fitted of course for the positions they occupy, but it 
was without any regard to acquaintance or fitness or experience or 
anything of that kind ” (1230). “ The inherent defect, I believe, 
in the Primary Law is that it is based upon an erroneous supposi- 


tion; that is, that the people are informed; they are not; there is 
not any use of criticising them; you have got to take them just as 
they are. They don’t know the men who are candidates for State 
offices. This does not apply to a county primary. Where the con¬ 
ditions are such as to require it, I believe the county primary to he 
a very wise thing. There the people are acquainted. They know 
their candidates; they discuss; they talk about them in the stores 
and everybody knows who the candidates are; they vote intelli¬ 
gently” (1230). He thought that the Primary Law had been a 
great benefit in cities of a certain class. If a county primary law 
was to be adopted, he thought it should be optional with the voters 
of the county. 

Observations on the Iowa System. 

The conclusions of the Committee from the investigation of the 
Kansas system may he referred to as expressing substantially the 
results of our observation of the working of the Iowa system under 
the first primary. 

Iowa is an ideal state for the operation of any system of direct 
primaries, as the education and intelligence of its people is 
unusually high, the population is quite evenly distributed over the 
State, the farmers are wealthy. The fact that there is almost 
no foreign population and that the largest city is not much above 
75,000 makes the practical operation of a direct system of nomi¬ 
nations at least feasible, if not desirable. 

The same conditions, however, under a legalized delegate and 
convention system would produce much better results than could 
be expected from such system in a district composed of many dif¬ 
ferent foreign elements and where an intelligent interest and 
co-operation in political affairs is lacking. 

The elimination from the operation of the primary system of 
nomination of judges of the Supreme Court is desirable, and the 
requirement that no candidate can he nominated at the primary 
unless he received at least 35 per cent, of the vote cast for 
all the candidates of his party is, in our opinion, still more desir¬ 
able; this percentage might even he increased to advantage, as it 
will tend to prevent the nomination of undesirable candidates 
through the expenditure of money and great personal activity, and 
by procuring a multitude of candidates for the office contended for 


94 


in order to weaken the support of some strong and popular adver¬ 
sary. In such case the nominations are made by the party 
conventions. 

If the direct State wide nominations system is continued, the 
splitting of the majority party into hostile factions and the dis¬ 
integration of the minority is sure to result. If the theory of 
some advocates of the direct system that there should be no party 
lines except in national affairs is the correct theory of govern¬ 
ment, and that national parties, as such, have no place in the 
administration of State or local .affairs, then the State-wide 
primary of Kansas and Iowa may be confidently relied upon to 
accomplish this result. It is unnecessary to repeat here the con¬ 
clusions stated after the investigation of the Kansas system which 
apply to Iowa as well. 

The State convention, composed of delegates who formulate the 
platform, instead of the candidates who have been nominated at 
the primary, is a very desirable feature and preferable to the 
Kansas system. The preservation of the county and district con¬ 
ventions is also advantageous. 


95 


MINNESOTA, 

The Law. 

Minnesota has had a primary law with direct nominations since 
1901. It applies to all elective officers, except State officers, and 
members of school, park and library boards; also except towns, 
villages and cities of fourth class. 

The feature not found in other states investigated is that the 
primary day is the first day of registration, seven weeks before 
the election, so that the registration officers also record the primary 
vote, thus saving a part of the public expense. 

Candidates for office are not required to procure petitions, but 
merely file an affidavit stating the desire of the affiant to become 
a candidate of the party of his choice and setting forth his party 
allegiance and that he voted for a majority of the candidates of 
this party at the last election, or intends to support the ticket at 
the coming election. 

A filing fee varying from ten to twenty dollars is required, 
evidently for the purpose of preventing a multiplicity of unworthy 
candidates. 

Separate ballots are printed for the several parties and the 
names of candidates are entered thereon under the offices to be 
voted for in alphabetical order, but an amendment to the law as 
originally passed provides for a rotation of names, to overcome 
the apparent advantage to the candidate whose name appears first 
under the designation of the office. 

There is no system of enrollment and the voter is only required 
to make a party declaration when challenged. 

Primaries for the election of delegates are held at such times 
as *party rules may fix, under, however, statutory limitations. The 
statute also governs the conduct of conventions, when assembled. 
State conventions nominate state officers, including justices of the 
Supreme Court. 


9G 


The Operation and Results of the Primary Law in 
Minnesota. 

The sessions of the Committee were held at the capitol building 
in St. Paul, and several prominent citizens of Minneapolis also 
attended and gave us the benefit of their experiences in Minne¬ 
apolis and elsewhere. 

Mr. W. W. HefFelfinger, a shoe manufacturer of Minneapolis, 
a Republican, who has been to some extent identified with political 
activities in Minnesota, thought that the results of the operation 
of the Primary Law in this State had not been satisfactory. The 
State has a population of about two millions with a normal Repub¬ 
lican majority of from 30,000 to 50,000. 

Mr. Dwindle was the framer of the law and was beaten in his 
candidacy for the Legislature the first time it was tried; he was 
regarded as a very strong man, against whom there would probably 
have been no opposition under a convention system. It is the 
common practice for candidates before the primary to make a 
very personal campaign, spending money, treating voters and in 
making himself generally popular with the element in the cities 
who can be induced to go out to the primary. Mr. Heffelfinger 
cited the fact of the defeat on several occasions of Republican 
candidates for mayor of Minneapolis which he attributed to the 
bitterness engendered by the primary contests. He stated that 
the vote at the primary was not increasing in the same proportion 
as the population; that while there had been an increase in popu¬ 
lation of 150,000 people there was practically no increase in 
attendance at the primary. Voters tired of the personal contests 
of party members before the primaries. It is also simply impos¬ 
sible to make any geographical distribution of the ticket, or dis¬ 
tribution according to nationality under this system. There are 
a good many Scandinavians, and upon the tickets sometimes there 
appeared an excess, so to speak, of the foreign element. The 
necessity and expense of making two campaigns deters the best 
men from undertaking to secure public office. Upon one occasion 
in Minneapolis the Democrats succeeded in nominating Dr. Ames, 
a Democrat, on the Republican ticket, and' then beat him at the 
polls. Members of one party were in the habit of voting the 
primary ticket of another, either to nominate a weak candidate 




97 

or to help a friend. Party organization has been split all to 
pieces by this method. 

Although Governor Johnson recommended the extension of the 
system to State officers and United States Senator, it was not taken 
seriously by the Legislature and there appears to be no strong 
demand in the state for such extension. 

Mr. Heffelfinger will be recalled as a prominent member of the 
Yale football team some years ago. 

Mr. Hugh T. Halbert, an attorney, who is president of the 
Roosevelt Club of St. Paul, and at one time chairman of the Re¬ 
publican City Committee, but now claiming not to be identified 
with any party, and particularly interested in an organization 
known as “ The Voters’ League,” disagreed quite radically with 
Mr. Heffelfinger. While Mr. Halbert declined to express an 
opinion as to whether better officials were obtained for the public 
service under the direct nominations system, he was quite con¬ 
vinced that there was an educational value in the. primary system 
which more than compensated for the trouble and expense of 
making nominations by this method. 

The Voters’ League is a non-partisan organization that has come 
into existence since the enactment of the Primary Law. Its aims 
and object%are to instruct voters by way of suggestion after the 
names of candidates are published and before primary .day. The 
league is supported by voluntary contributions of patriotic citizens, 
and about a week before the primary is held the league publishes 
over the signatures of a selected committee the names of the can¬ 
didates, whom the league regards as most worthy and best fitted 
for the offices sought for. The existence of the league is due to 
the fact that without such information the mass of voters would 
vote blindly or upon the personal appeal of candidates and fre¬ 
quently unworthy and incompetent men would secure a plurality 
and become the party nominees. 

Mr. Halbert advocated the extension of the system to State 
officers and United State Senators, and claimed that the attend¬ 
ance of voters at the primary undgr this system was much larger 
than under the former caucus and convention method. He would 
absolutely eliminate party organization and partisanship from city 
and county offices. He declared that he believed in a pure 
Democracy as distinguished from a representative government and 
4 


98 


also believed in the “ initiative,” “ referendum,” and “ recall.” 
He attributed the defeat of the Republican candidate for gover¬ 
nor practically to the bitterness of factional fights in the pri¬ 
maries, but also to the magnetic personality of Governor Johnson. 
The factional fights started in the primaries are carried into the 
election and frequently result in the defeat of the candidate of 
the majority party, who was successful at the primary, and in¬ 
stanced the case of a mayor of St. Paul, a reputable business man, 
who was recently defeated. Mr. Halbert conceded that the major¬ 
ity was not always right, because they sometimes failed to dis¬ 
criminate between honest and dishonest public servants; he 
thought, however, that in the primary, the voters would discrim¬ 
inate and be swayed by patriotic motives, while at the election that 
followed, the same people were frequently swayed by factional 
prejudice (1288). Mr. Halbert strongly supported and com¬ 
mended the action of the Minnesota congressmen, who, with one 
exception, voted against the recent tariff bill. 

Hon. Julius Schmall, Secretary of State since January, 1906, 
and re-elected as Republican candidate in 1908 at the same elec¬ 
tion that the Republican candidate for governor was defeated by 
Governor J ohnson. Mr. Schmall strongly condemned the primary 
law in Minnesota. The practice of the minority party in par¬ 
ticipating in the majority party’s primary is a great evil and 
the operation of the primary law at the present time is such that 
it is not getting the best men for the various offices in the Legis¬ 
lature and other places. Professional and business men abso¬ 
lutely refuse in almost every case to enter into a contest where 
they are obliged to pass through a primary and general election. 

In regard to the voting by Democrats of the Republican pri¬ 
mary tickets, where the Republican party is the dominant party, 
Mr. Schmall said that so far as Minnesota is concerned, with 
eighty or eighty-five counties having large Republican majorities, 
he did not believe the enrollment system proposed in New York 
would be of any value whatever, and had communicated his views 
upon this subject in correspondence with the present executive of 
New York State. 

Several bills were introduced in the last Legislature in Minne¬ 
sota, having for their object the prevention of this practice by 
absolutely requiring that a party, in order to be entitled to go 


99 


upon the election ballot as a party and to have a separate primary 
ballot in subsequent primaries, must cast a certain percentage of its 
registered vote at the primary election; it was thought that the 
fear of being eliminated as a party would induce Democrats to 
vote their own ticket, so as to be certain that the required per¬ 
centage of votes was cast. 

In the Legislature, the Democrats were unanimously opposed 
to it and a number of members of both branches of the legislature 
of the majority party were opposed to the primary system entirely 
and the amendments failed. He thought that a 20 or 25 per cent 
basis would keep the members of each party in their own party at 
the primary contest and would in a measure alleviate that diffi¬ 
culty. A party enrollment of a year in advance of the primary 
would be a good proposition, in the opinion of Mr. Schmall. 

Mr. Schmall also maintained that as a result of the working 
of the primary system, it became absolutely necessary to adopt 
the rotating system in the arrangement of names upon the primary 
ballots and that now every other ballot was changed, so that in 
a case of live candidates, the man whose name was at the head 
of the ticket upon the first ballot would appear there on every 
fifth ballot. 

In regard to the expense to candidates, Mr. Schmall, who was 
a newspaper man, said that the cost of public announcements, 
sending out literature, etc., of a candidate for a member of the 
Legislature, where he was opposed, is greater than what he actually 
receives as a salary for the session. There are from ten to eighteen 
newspapers in many of the counties of the State and a candidate 
is obliged to get his announcements in each one of these papers and 
to patronize in some way or other, all of them. He cited several 
cases in the State where young men, as a result of the primary 
system, have become financially as well as morally bankrupt. 

The secretary had no data from which we could determine the 
public expense of holding the primary, as each county takes care 
of its own expenses and there is no report made to the Secretary 
of State. 

Hon. W. W. Eustis, former mayor of the city of Minneapolis, 
and a Republican candidate for Governor in 1898, came from 
his home in Minneapolis in order to give to the Committee his 


100 


experiences under the operation of the Primary Law of Minnesota. 

He said, in substance, that the enactment of the Primary Law 
was due to a feeling that the people were not taking as much 
interest as. they ought to in the matter of nominations and that if 
you could get larger numbers of them to take an interest that 
better nominations would probably result. The caucuses and con¬ 
ventions were not regulated by law and while there was some com¬ 
plaint of sharp dealing and sharp practice in the caucuses and 
conventions, the great object was getting more people interested 
in making the nominations. There was not much heated discus¬ 
sion when Mr. Dwindle introduced the Primary Law, and it was 
easily passed; he was defeated at the first primary under it. 

There was no claim that the State was boss ridden and that 
nominations were dictated, for Minnesota never had a boss. The 
mayor thought sometimes it would be better if they had a political 
boss in the State. 

While he thought the Primary Law was better than the caucus 
system, as the caucus was run previously, it has its drawbacks 
like everything else that is human. He cited one of their first 
experiences in Minneapolis where the Democrats nominated a 
Democrat upon the Republican ticket for mayor, and in this case 
he was elected. 

It is difficult to get self-respecting people to run for office and 
take the chance on the character of a primary fight, which gets 
to be very intense and oftentimes so bitter that the bitterness con¬ 
tinues into the election and defeat follows. The fight is just 
as bitter as it would be between candidates of different parties, and 
this bitterness furnishes ammunition for the opponents. Tii 
Minneapolis, the Democratic party, being considerably in the 
minority, have avoided contests and if there has been a hot fight in 
the Republican party their own candidate used the arguments that 
have been used by his opponent in the party fight, and in that wav 
the Republicans have lost one or two mayors in the city. 

The operation of the law has tended in Minnesota to disruption 
and disintegration of the majority party and the building up of 
factions. The evil results from the multiplicity of candidates 
are common; in many cases they have as many as twenty candidates 


101 


for a single office, some of them entirely unfit for the office filed 
for (1326). 

When Mayor Eustis was asked by a member of the Committee 
for any suggestions which would prevent the bad results of the 
operation of the law in Minnesota he was unable to make any, but 
said that he hoped that Minnesota might get some benefit from 
the experience and investigation of this Committee and requested 
a copy of the report and expressed the belief that it would help 
them much in the matter of legislation upon the same subject. 

So far as the nominations are concerned, he could not say that 
the primary had produced any better nominations and he would 
not say that they were any worse; that there was no material 
change. 

The primary law applies to the nomination of district judges 
and there is considerable scrambling for that position. At one 
primary fifteen petitions were filed and three nominated. 

In conclusion, the mayor said that from what he knew of the 
working of the primary law in Minnesota, and from what he knew 
of the conditions in Yew York city, he was inclined to think that 
better results could be obtained under the convention system than 
under the primary system. 

Mr. S. P. Jones, a resident of Minneapolis, and executive sec¬ 
retary and agent of the Voters’ League before mentioned, gave 
the Committee more in detail the work of this non-partisan body. 

The Democrats claim it is a Republican organization and Re¬ 
publicans claim it is destroying the Republican organization, and 
while it has worked to some extent to break up and confuse party 
organizations locally, Mr. Jones said this was not intentional. 
There was no such organization before the enactment of the pri¬ 
mary law, for its effectiveness was due to the fact principally 
that it reaches the public twice, at the primaries and at the elec¬ 
tions. Its work is to recommend that certain candidates be nomi¬ 
nated or to advise the voters to support certain candidates who 
may be seeking nomination or election. 

He believed that the Voters’ League has accomplished consider¬ 
able in the matter of selecting better candidates for office than 
had been previously selected, and the reason for its existence 


102 


and work was the fact that the primary system was not selecting 
suitable candidates entirely. 

Mr. Jones stated that he had prepared for the executive of this 
State a table showing the participation of voters at the primaries 
and that under the new system from 75 to 95 per cent in the city 
of Minneapolis had participated, while under the old system 
not more than 15 or 20 per cent of the voters of the Republican 
party participated in the caucuses. Its percentage is determined 
by the number of primary ballots cast compared with the Repub¬ 
lican vote at election or the registration, but did not take into 
consideration the Democrats who voted the Republican primary 
ticket. He also contended that the educational value of the pri¬ 
mary was great in importance and that the people are taking more 
and more interest all the while. If there were more primaries and 
more elections, the interest would be still greater. The majority 
party primaries have increased quite largely in attendance, while 
the minority party primary has not shown any marked change; 
there is no doubt that many Democrats vote for Republicans in 
many primaries and vice-versa (1357). 

He cited an instance where the saloon element of the Democratic 
party wanted to nominate a man, who would be favorable to their 
interests in the Republican party and succeeded in doing so, so that 
if a Republican should be elected, they would have a friend at 
court. Bitterness engendered in these contests at times undoubt¬ 
er]y has been a factor in the final election. Mr. Jones does not 
regard direct primaries as a finality in municipal affairs, but 
believes it to be a step in the right direction, and would welcome 
the day when there is but one election, entirely non-partisan, both 
in municipal and county affairs. He said that the “ initiative,” 
the “ referendum ” and the “ recall ” is the only salvation of our 
cities; that direct nomination is one important step in securing this 
desired end in municipal and State politics and everything else is 
boy’s play in comparison (1359). This is the only way to obtain 
correct legislation and make the representatives directly responsible 
to the people and make it a people’s government. He does not 
believe in party government by parties, nor the responsibility 
of nominees to parties, and of parties to the people (1360). 

And in regard to the expense incurred by candidates, while 


103 

admitting that there were some men who spent a great deal of 
money he did not believe it was necessary; that many worthy men 
with small means had succeeded in obtaining nominations. The 
electors of the party do not feel themselves bound with the results 
of the primary if their man is defeated and vote for his opponent 
on the other party ticket. The direct primary is thoroughly de¬ 
moralizing; it is especially demoralizing in the dominant party 
and makes strongly for independent voting on local issues, which, 
Mr. Jones says that he himself and his organization think, is a good 
thing and one of the reasons why he advocates it (1364). 

Mr. Jones stated that he formerly lived in Binghamton, X. Y., 
and had been familiar with Yew York politics for a great many 
years; that he thought Yew York had a harder proposition than 
Minnesota and that the problems of the great cities were far more 
complicated than those of his own State. 

Mr. John E. Kring, a resident of Red Lake Falls, Minnesota, 
and the State librarian appointed by Governor Johnson, expressed 
himself generally in favor of the Minnesota law and of its exten¬ 
sion to State officers. He said, however, that the State of Minne¬ 
sota had had good and satisfactory officers under the convention 
system, including Governor Johnson, who had been twice nomi¬ 
nated and elected under this system. 

Tt will be remembered that Minnesota has biennial elections and 
not annual elections as in Yew York, and Mr. Kring gave it as his 
opinion that where annual elections are conducted, the primary 
would keep the citizens in political turmoil for so long a period 
as to make it undesirable, and under such circumstances, he 
doubted the advisability of making it State-wide. 

He said that the average man rebels against the idea that any 
one has authority to ask him what ticket he is going to vote or 
what party he has affiliated with, and that there is a large body 
of independent men in Minnesota that would be barred from the 
primaries under any rule which deprived them of the right to 
vote any primary ticket they desired (1377). 

There is also a feeling that the right to select candidates upon 
any ticket regardless of party is theirs. So far as local or county 
bosses are concerned he thought the system had lessened their 


101 


influence to a considerable extent, but that he did not know of 
any so-called State boss. 

Mr. J. A. Larsen, also a resident of Red Lake county, and a 
member of the Legislature at the time the Primary Election Law 
was passed, and now Assistant Secretary of State, was before the 
Committee. He said in substance, that the operation of the 
Primary Law in his county, which was of a rural character, was 
entirely opposite from what the members of the Legislature 
thought it would be when the law was passed, and in further 
explanation said that the prosperous farmers and merchants and 
business men from all localities met in convention under the 
old system and selected desirable men for the Legislature. The 
expense was much less and it was much easier to get certain 
men to run for such offices than under the present system. While 
he was not openly opposed to the Primary Law, he believed that 
unless it could be very largely improved, so far as the State of 
Minnesota is concerned, the present system is an evil one. 

Mr. Larsen spoke of contests in his own county; in the last 
primary campaign, there was something like 2,000 votes cast, of 
which the Democratic nominee received less than fifty, but the 
successful Republican nominee was only elected by a majority of 
99. The Democrats paid absolutely no attention to their own 
primary. In his own voting precinct, there were about 100 
Republican votes cast and only one Democratic vote. This con¬ 
dition breaks up party ties. He also mentioned a contest for 
judicial nomination, in which there were four Republican can¬ 
didates in a district very largely Republican and the contest was 
so bitter that the independent candidate came very nearly defeating 
the Republican at the election. 

Many men in his. locality have expended more money than the 
office paid in their contest'for the nomination, sometimes including 
funds entrusted to their care, when the contest was so bitter that 
it was necessary for them to obtain money to carry on the fight. 
He stated also that the plurality system sometimes selected poor 
candidates who were nominated because of their activity and per¬ 
sistency. 

Mr. W. J. Nolan, a Chautauqua lecturer and former member of 
the Legislature, thought that the Primary Law of Minnesota had 


105 


been satisfactory to the people, had worked out well, but not as well 
as some of its best friends hoped it would. Many attempts had 
been made in the Legislature to amend it, but an agreement could 
pot be reached for the reason that a majority of the members 
were opposed to the Primary Law as an institution, and it was too 
expensive a system, and when any attempt was made to amend it, 
there was so much difference of opinion as to how it should be 
amended, the members were never able to get together. 

He was inclined to favor the proposition to require any party 
to cast at least 25 per cent of its registered vote in order to 
maintain its party identity upon the election ticket. 

lie also thought that there should be some amendment prevent¬ 
ing the nomination of a candidate by so small a percentage of the 
vote as sometimes happens where there are a number of candidates, 
mentioning an instance where a candidate got scarcely 25 per 
cent. 

He could not give the Committee any information as to the 
working of the Primary Law in the country districts, his experi¬ 
ence being entirely confined to Hennepin County, which includes 
the city of Minneapolis. So far as cities are concerned, he did 
not believe in any Primary Law or in party politics, but thought 
the commission system most desirable. 

He expressed his belief in the “ initiative,” the “ referendum ” 
and the recall,” but did not think that the country was ripe 
for a pure democracy, nor that all the legislation should be 
enacted through the initiative or the referendum, but thought it 
desirable as a check on legislative bodies, and in cases where the 
Legislature has failed to enact a law, or has enacted a vicious 
law, he thought the people should have the right to repeal such 
law, and to insist upon an enactment of a law generally desired. 

Hon. S. G. Iverson, a resident of Fillmore county, Minnesota, 
and State Auditor, spoke quite at length in favor of the Minnesota 
Primary Law, and advocated its extension to State officers. To a 
certain degree he believed in the initiative, the referendum and 
the recall, and thought it has a tendency in the right dirction, as 
it was giving the people more and more control over their own 
affairs. 


Observations on the Minnesota System. 

1. The retention of the convention system for the nomination 
of State officers and justices of the Supreme Court has a tendency 
in the state of Minnesota to keep political parties more harmonious 
so far as State and national politics are concerned. The 
bitterness aroused in local, municipal and congressional pri¬ 
mary contests in the majority party frequently brings about the 
defeat of the candidate who is successful in the primary contest. 

2. The same conditions are apparent in Minnesota as have 
been found in the other states, and that is the practice uniformly 
condemned of the members of one party voting the primary ticket 
of another. The Minnesota primary is quite nearly an open 
primary, although the voter can be prevented from voting the 
ticket of another party by challenge. 

The enrollment system would, we believe, help this situation 
to some extent, but the suggestion of such a system in Minnesota 
is unpopular, as are other suggestions for amendments desired by 
friends of the law, because the majority of the Legislature appears 
to be opposed to it upon principle. 

3. The combination of the primary and the first day of regis¬ 
tration is a saving of expense and has a tendency to bring out a 
larger vote to the primary. It will be noted that delegates to the 
State convention are not selected on primary day, but at party 
caucuses held at such times as the party rules may declare, but 
controlled by legislative enactment as to notice, method of pro¬ 
cedure, etc. 

We think the Iowa system of electing delegates at the primary 
is preferable. 

4. The biennial elections in this and other states makes politi¬ 
cal disturbances and excitement less objectionable than where 
annual elections are held. 

5. If a primary election law with direct nomination features 
is enacted the assistance of voluntary organizations such as the 
Voters’ League, if conducted fairly and honestly, should be of 


107 


great service from an educational standpoint, and is found to be 
very desirable, and in fact quite necessary in the selection of 
reputable candidates for public office. 

0. The requirement of the Minnesota law that a candidate at 
the primary shall pay a specified fee, from ten to twenty dollars, 
according to the importance of the office, undoubtedly has a ten¬ 
dency to prevent irresponsible and undesirable men from becoming 
candidates at the primary. The petition system of other states 
has little value, and the State or locality might as well receive the 
fee from the candidate as to have it paid to agents of the candi¬ 
dates for soliciting signatures to his petition. 

7. Under the operation of this law there is no opportunity for 
geographical distribution of candidates or distribution according 
to nationality and the cities in a district largely control the nomi¬ 
nations as against the rural portion. 

8. There is a strong tendency toward the elimination of party 
politics in the administration of the affairs of cities and for the 
adoption of the so-called commission system. 


108 


WISCONSIN. 


The Law. 

The Primary Election Law of Wisconsin, providing for direct 
nominations, was passed in 1903 and the first State-wide primary 
held under it was in 1906. The primary election is held at the 
regular polling places in each precinct on the first Tuesday of 
September. All candidates for elective offices, including United 
States Senators, are required to be nominated in accordance with 
the provisions of the act, except State Superintendent of Schools, 
presidential electors, county and district superintendent of schools 
and judicial officers, but it applies to’police justices and justices 
of the peace in cities of first, second and third class. In cities of 
the fourth class primary elections are not held except upon the 
petition of at least twenty-five per cent of the electors. Candidates 
for office may also, as in other places, he nominated by nomination 
papers after the primary. 

A candidate can get his name upon the primary ballot only by 
filing a petition executed by a certain percentage of the voters, 
verified by affidavit of one elector. The names of the candidates 
are first placed upon the primary ballot in alphabetical order, and 
by a recent amendment to the law they are required to be rotated, 
substantially as provided in Kansas, Iowa and Minnesota, so as 
not to give any one candidate an advantage over another by reason 
of his place upon the ticket. Another amendment to the original 
law provides that the candidate must not procure more than ten 
per cent of the party vote in the district in which his petition 
is circulated and all signatures to his petition must be obtained 
within sixty days prior to the date of filing. The object of this 
is to prevent a candidate from getting an undue advantage over 
his opponents by getting a large petition signed. 

Separate ballots are printed for each party and these are 
fastened together and handed to each voter when he applies for a 
ballot to vote at the primary; the voter then enters the booth as 
upon election day and marks one ballot, tears it off, folds it and 
returns it to be voted, and the blank ballots, which are placed in a 
separate box and destroyed immediately after the primary is 


109 


closed. There is no endorsement upon the ticket, so that each 
voter at the primary votes any party ticket he pleases, regardless 
of his party affiliations, and has the benefit of an absolutely secret 
ballot. It has been found, however, that because of this privilege 
members of the minority party very largely vote the majority 
party’s ticket, and very frequently control the nomination. There 
is a strong sentiment in the State against depriving the voter of 
the privilege of the secret ballot, and an amendment has been 
recently passed providing that unless all the candidates for a par¬ 
ticular office poll at least twenty per cent of the party vote, based 
upon the last vote for Presidential electors, they are deprived of 
the benefit and privilege of appearing as party candidates upon 
the official ballot; they may, of course, file independent nomina¬ 
tions on petition. 

A plurality vote nominates. Party committees are elected in 
the several precincts to make up the party county, congressional, 
senatorial and assembly committees. The State convention is 
composed of candidates for various State offices and for Senate and 
Assembly nominated at the primary, and Senators whose terms of 
office extend beyond the first Monday in January of the next 
ensuing year after the primary. This convention formulates the 
platform of the party, elects State central committee, and in presi¬ 
dential years nominates presidential electors. 

For a number of years prior to the adoption of the Primary 
Election Law there was in force a Corrupt Practices Act requir¬ 
ing all candidates for office to file statements showing their 
expenditures in procuring the nomination and election. There is 
no limit to the amount, but some general provisions as to limitation 
upon the methods and objects of such expenditure. 

Tile Operation and Results of the Primary Law in 
Wisconsin. 

Sessions of the Committee were held at the capitol in Madison 
and at the city hall in Milwaukee. So many witnesses appeared 
and the record of their testimony, covering pages 1433 to 1942, 
is so lengthy, that it will be quite impossible, in the limits of this 
report, to do much more than mention the new salient points 
brought out upon the examination. 




no 


There are strong factional differences in the Republican party, 
the so-called Half breed element under the leadership of Senator 
Robert M. LaFollette, generally favoring direct nominations, but 
advocating amendments to the present law so as to provide for 
what is known as the “ second choice,” w 7 hile the Stalwart faction 
is quite generally opposed to the law. 

Something like twenty-five bills were introduced at the last ses¬ 
sion, seeking to amend the law in various particulars, but the only 
amendments of any importance that were permitted was the one 
requiring that candidates for a particular office must poll at the 
primary at least twenty per cent of the party vote, and the 
amendment providing for the rotation of names of candidates 
for any designated office. 

A bill was presented, but not passed, providing for a method 
of second choice, which bill was strongly advocated by Mr. Charles 
J. Lush, chief clerk to the secretary of state, who was before the 
Committee. Apparently this measure will meet with less opposi¬ 
tion at the next session of the Legislature, for Senator LaFollette 
has recently advocated it through his publication known as 
“ LaFollette’s Weekly Magazine.” 

A bill was also introduced providing for party enrollment for 
the purpose of preventing members of one party from voting 
the ticket of another. 

Hon. J. A. Aylward, the Democratic candidate for governor 
in 1906 and 1908, stated to the Committee that he had prepared 
a bill for this purpose following the Oregon law; that it went to 
the committee on elections and that Mr. Roycroft, the chairman, 
stated that the committee did not want to report the bill because 
the Halfbreed members of the committee had had Democratic sup¬ 
port in the primaries and expected it in the future and did not 
wish to prevent it, and that the Stalwart members thought it was 
introduced so as to help the Democratic party and they did not 
want to support it; so between the two factions it died. Mr. 
Aylward said that the situation in this State is such that the 
primary law is killing the minority party and they can scarcely 
maintain an organization when both factions of the Republican 
party are “ drawing and pulling and trying to get us to go into 
their caucus.” (1533, 1534.) He strongly opposed the twenty 
per cent bill above referred to, and said it would probably kill the 


Democratic party in the State of Wisconsin, as it is a very dif¬ 
ficult thing for the minority party to get twenty per cent of its 
vote to the primary. The use of money in the primaries is all 
powerful. I think any man,” said he, “ I don’t care who he is 
or what his record is, if he has got enough money, he can carry 
the State either on the Democratic side or the Republican side 
for a nomination for any office in the State.” 

Mr. Aylward, however, believed that the Primary Law was an 
improvement over the practices of the old delegate and convention 
law, as they were conducted without any statutory control. 

The secretary of state, Hon. James A. Frear, strongly defended 
the law and believed that conditions under it were much better 
than under the delegate and convention system, and that if it 
were possible to amend it, its operation might be perfected. 

Mr. Frear was the first of the secretaries of state to commend 
the system of direct nominations before this Committee, the 
secretaries of Kansas, Iowa and Minnesota having condemned it. 

Mr. Charles J. Lush, above referred to, expressed himself as 
opposed to the Primary Law of Wisconsin, particularly because it 
did not secure nominees who were the choice of a majority of the 
party. He also thought it was a mistake to extend the law to 
include State officers and believed that a system which provided 
for the election at primaries of delegates to State conventions and 
for direct primaries so far as the nomination of local and county 
officers are concerned, would bring about, a better situation, and 
make less factional disturbances in the majority party. 

Hon. John M. Whitehead, a Yale graduate and State senator 
from Janesville, Rock County, and a Republican in politics, 
strongly condemned the law and the practices that have grown¬ 
up under it. Biennial sessions of the Legislature are held and 
the salary for senators and representatives is $500 for the two 
years with one mileage and no additional salary for extra sessions. 
The term of members of the assembly is two years and for senators 
four years. There has been substantially no change in the per¬ 
sonnel of public officers since the introduction of the Direct Nomi¬ 
nations system; the men who were in office have very largely 
retained their positions. 

Mr. Whitehead’s county voted against the adoption of the 
Primary T^aw when it was proposed and submitted to the people 


on the Referendum in 1903. To use the words of Mr. Whitehead 
(1488), “ I think it has created a great deal of turmoil and politi¬ 
cal trouble without any material change in the personnel of the 
public officers and has entailed upon candidates a great deal of 
personal inconvenience and expense and annoyance that they did 
not know anything about under the old system. It has a tendency 
to disrupt parties; the party leadership gives way to personal 
leadership and cliques get in operation. It tends to take away 
the interest of the average citizen in political activity, practically 
paralyzes the general political committee; in my county, which is 
overwhelmingly Republican and where we formerly had a strong 
central organization, it is difficult, almost impossible, to maintain 
any effective party committee organization and difficult to get men 
to attend political meetings, and under the methods of selecting 
committeemen at the primary it has gone largely by default and 
people have neglected to vote for committeemen and have paid 
little or no attention to the matter.” (1489.) 

Candidates cover the billboards with what they have done and 
what they propose to do, and till the newspapers with their personal 
advertisements. The whole country is plastered over with posters, 
photographs and lithographs; nobody is responsible for the candi¬ 
date, no party and nobody but himself and his little clique. 
(1490.) 

Referring to the large number of voters who participate in the 
primary, Mr. Whitehead said that the candidates have their own 
workers and everything is on a commercial basis. The primary 
has developed a school of retainers or professional workers whom 
a candidate may retain in his service and employ during the 
campaign, and this man manages the campaign of a candidate 
and it is the business of these men to scurry around and get the 
vote out. Railroads and other great corporations frequently take 
a hand in securing the nomination of some candidate. The ten¬ 
dency is toward cliques and intrigues and personal factions more 
and more. A great leader gathers around him a following and 
strives to hold it; the following that rallies around one man is not 
a party but a personal following. Parties are united on principles 
and customs. There is nothing to bring the people together in 
the primary for an exchange of views. 


113 


Referring to the attempted amendments of the law, he said: 
“ Xo law on the statute book is sought to be tinkered so much as 
this Primary Election Law. It is artificial throughout from 
beginning to end, arbitrary in all its provisions, everything about 
it is invented. All the experience of the people in regard to the 
management of their parties Avas cast aside, and the whole law 
is constructed practically on a new basis from top to bottom and 
the result is that it galls first on one shoulder and then on the 
other, and one Legislature fixes one thing, and then the next 
Legislature fixes something else, or fixes the other thing over 
again” (1503).. 

Lie referred to the re-nomination of Congressman Babcock and 
to his defeat at the election and attributed it to bitterness that 
grew out of the primary between Mr. Babcock and his opponents, 
within his own party. 

Hon. John M. Clancey, an attorney of Stoughton, Wisconsin, a 
Democrat in politics and formerly an Assistant Attorney-General 
of the State, also at one time mayor of his own city, appeared 
before the Committee. 

Mr. Clancey has been very active in politics as a public speaker, 
secretary of the Democratic State Central Committee and Xational 
Democratic Committeeman from Wisconsin and one of the secre¬ 
taries of the Democratic Xational Convention held in Chicago in 
1896. Mr. Clancey took substantially the same views given by 
Mr. AVhitehead. lie said that voters could have no reliable infor¬ 
mation as to the character and fitness of candidates and that if a 
good man was nominated it is more likely to be accidental than 
otherwise. The fact that voters must make their choice of candi¬ 
dates in ignorance of their characters, has led hundreds of men to 
aspire to public office who would not dare submit their character 
and qualifications to the scrutiny of a nominating convention. 

In conclusion, he said: “ In theory the law appears to be all 

right; in practice it is simply damnable. The states that have 
not yet adopted it are to be commended for their wisdom; the 
states which have adopted it are sufficiently cursed without adding 
additional imprecations. Tell the Democrats of Xew York to flee 
from it as they would from a sinking ship.” 

The minutes of Mr. Clancey’s testimony taken at the bearing 


114 


were unfortunately destroyed by fire at the stenographer’s cottage 
and Mr. Glancey subsequently furnished the substance of his 
testimony, with a letter of transmission, which is made a part 
of the record. 

One of the most frank, careful and conservative witnesses was 
Professor Ernst C. Meyer, professor of political science in Wis¬ 
consin University, who has written a book upon “ Nominating Sys¬ 
tems,” and whose testimony given before the Committee appears 
at pages 1541 to 1565. 

Professor Meyer said, that upon the general principle of direct 
nominations, as contrasted with nominations by representatives, 
after a good deal of study and reading, he reached certain conclu¬ 
sions and in 1902 he came to be strongly in favor of direct nomi¬ 
nations for all offices in the State, that is a “ State-wide primary.” 
“ [ did not,” said he, “ see many possibilities for corruption which 
I see to-day after the law has been in use in our State, and a good 
many of the other States, and I have some reason to say that T 
should modify my view somewhat. I believe that all in all the 
direct primary is superior to the convention system, but we have 
all seen defects in it and I presume that only an incurable idealist 
would have expected a new system to operate without difficulties in 
some cases, cases of great importance, which in the eyes of many 
have proven the primary a failure.” 

In pointing out the defects of the system, Professor Meyer gave 
to the Committee many concrete cases which he said he believed 
would be of more real value than any academic argument. 

First, as to the public expense: 

The first trial of the primary was 1905, and the cost varied 
from fifteen cents to twenty dollars a vote, and about 75 per cent 
of the total vote of the general election participated. In one 
precinct seven men were paid $2.50 each by the State and received 
31 votes. This is an extreme case and no more proves any rule 
than the case mentioned by Mr. Price in New York, where in 
a certain district in 1888, 50 voters chose 115 delegates, as this 
would not be typical of the operation of the convention system. 

In the fall primary of 1906, about 60 per cent of the total party 
strength was represented. The Kepublican party, however, cast a 
vote of 93 per cent of its full strength and the Democratic party 


115 


a vote of about 20 per cent, the Prohibition party a vote of 19 
and a fraction, and the Social Democratic party 10 and a fraction, 
bringing the total vote cast in the primary to 64. 

In 1905, in the fall primary, the participation amounted to 
almost 46 per cent of the vote cast at the general election. 

From this, Professor Meyer says that the conclusion will prob¬ 
ably be drawn that the participation has been larger and in some 
cases considerably larger than it was in the old caucus and con¬ 
vention system. 

The larger participation of the voters, however, is largely due 
to the public excitement induced by the personal advertising and 
activity of the candidates and to the expenditure of large sums of 
money in the campaign. A large number of candidates, any one 
of whom may be nominated by a plurality vote, all organizing, 
and advertising, will undoubtedly result in bringing out a larger 
number of voters than will ordinarily participate in a primary for 
the election of delegates. 

In the campaign for the office of United States senator in 1908, 
Mr. Stevenson received 31 per cent of the party vote, total 56,839; 
Mr. Cook, 26.25 per cent, total, 47,944; Mr. McGovern, 23.30 per 
cent, total, 42,631; Mr. Haddon, 19.44 per cent, total, 35,621. 

In the Democratic party, Mr. Brown received 66 1-2 per cent 
of the party vote, total 24,944; Mr. Hoyt, 33 1-2 per cent, total, 
12,281. 

Second, as to plurality nominations: 

In Milwaukee, in 1906, there were five Republican candidates 
for sheriff. The winner received 9,694 votes out of a total of 
26,412, or about 37 per cent of the party vote. 

For treasurer, there were six candidates, the winner received 
5,931 votes out of a total of 29,448, or about 23.3 per cent of the 
party vote. 

For clerk of the court, there were three candidates; the winner 
received 7,465 votes out of a total of 20,115, or about 37 per cent 
of the total party vote. 

For register of deeds there were three candidates and the winner 
had 8,388 out of 22,963, or about 36 per cent of the party vote. 

In no case did any candidate get a majority of the party vote. 
On the other hand, in 1906, in the contests for State senator, there 


were only two cases in all of the parties where there were more 
than two candidates and in those two, there were three, one of 
whom received 40 per cent of the total vote and the other 41 per 
cent. The congressional districts in 1906 showed but one contest 
where there were more than two candidates, the fourth district, 
where there were three, and Carey, the successful candidate 
received 42 per cent of the total. 

In the case of State officers, in 1908, the present Secretary of 
State, Mr. Frear, received 36 per cent of the total vote, with three 
candidates in the field. State Treasurer Doll received 29 per cent 
with five candidates, and Attorney-General Gilbert, 51 per cent 
with three candidates in the field, his being the only case of a 
majority nomination. 

The investigation of the Bureau of Statistics seems to indicate 
that in fifty-nine cases out of a hundred, the candidate was nomi¬ 
nated by a majority of the total vote. 

Professor Meyer suggests that some minimum requirement 
might be made as in Iowa to the effect that a candidate must 
receive a certain percentage of the vote in order to be entitled 
to the nomination. 

Third, as to expenditures by candidates: 

Professor Meyer states that the facts indicate that politics is 
a bad business; he came to this conclusion in comparing the total 
expenditures with the salary of the office sought. 

In 1906 there were five candidates for State Treasurer, and 
the expenditure for the primary was $8,192.42 for the $5,000' 
office. 

In the Fifth Congressional District in 1906 the contest for the 
nomination for Congress between Cochems and Stafford cost 
$3,738.43. 

Tn 1908, when the contest was sharp, the expenditure was 
$5,927.26, for both primary and general election. In 1908 five 
candidates for sheriff, three Republicans, one Democrat and one 
Social Democrat, expended $9,386.26. 

In the contest for district attorney in Milwaukee in 1906, Mr. 
McGovern, the successful candidate, expended $15,574.85, and 
his opponent $15,252.75, making a total of $30,828.58 for the 
$5,000 office for two years. 


The four candidates for United States senator in 1908, accord¬ 
ing to their sworn statements, filed in the office of the Secretary of 
State, expended $189,988.05, of which the successful candidate, 
Isaac Stevenson, spent $107,797, approximately $2 for every vote 
he received at the primary. After the primary, his opponents 
under the leadership of Senator LaFollette, sought to have the 
Legislature repudiate the primary vote, and except for the absence 
of two Democrats, this would have been accomplished. 

Professor Meyer deprecated so large expenditures and said that 
while the candidate might be, and probably was, an honest man, 
and was going into the business of trying for office for the honor 
of holding the office, he could conceive how it was so expensive, and 
if he had to borrow the money, he would be under obligations 
in many different ways. The direct primary is rather an expen¬ 
sive thing for any candidate, good or bad, and the difficulty is 
to remedy it. 

lie does not think it is wise to attempt to limit the amount 
of the expenditure, as has been suggested, to a certain percentage 
of the salary of the office, nor to attempt to limit it by defining 
the items for which no expenditure may be incurred, but rather 
define the items for which a candidate may create expense; tell 
him what he may do and not what he may not do (1556). 

While not advocating it, he nevertheless expressed the view that 
we might come to a time where the State would pay the expendi¬ 
ture of candidates, as is done in Colorado. 

Referring to the senatorial campaign, the professor thought he 
could see a sunny side to the expenditure of so much money, 
because of the popular agitation it involves, that the moral stand¬ 
ard of the press would ultimately be raised, although the tendency 
under this system was to lower it; in going through the country 
he found many people, who said they could not accept what they 
saw in the papers and he believed that ultimately there would be 
a reaction; that the press, in order to keep its power, would have 
to raise its standard of accuracy. The disposition, however, to 
expend so much money in securing nominations put the poor man 
to a great disadvantage (1559, 1560). 

Fourth, as to the breaking of party lines: 

According to Professor Meyer’s computations and reasoning, 


118 


he declared that in 1906, 24 per cent of the total vote cast in 
the Republican primary represented men who bolted their own 
party and entered the ranks of the Republican party, or a total 
of above 50,000 Democratic voters in the State. In 1908 about 
19 per cent of the Republican vote at the primary was the vote 
of Democrats, representing about 40,000 votes in the State. 

In the Fifth Congressional District in 1908, the Democrats 
polled in the primary, 1,248 votes; and in the general election, 
8,656 votes; and in the primary, the Social Democrats polled 938 
votes; and in the general election, 8,769 votes. 

It is an undisputed fact that the Social Democrats arid Demo¬ 
crats entered the Republican ranks to a very large extent and 
controlled the nomination. In Milwaukee, in 1906, Mr. McGov¬ 
ern was a strong candidate for district attorney. The Social 
Democratic candidate, Thiel, polled but a few votes and his friends 
assisted in defeating McGovern in the primary. McGovern then 
ran as an independent candidate and received 15,508 votes as 
against 15,484 votes for the Social Democrat, Thiel. 

In the senatorial contest in 1908, at least 50,000 members of 
the Democratic party voted the Republican primary ticket, which 
fact Professor Meyer determines from a comparison of the votes. 

As to the enrollment system in vogue in Hew York, Professor 
Meyer said that might be the most effective solution of this prob¬ 
lem, but there were many objections as it does not give the voter 
a sufficient independence at the time of the primary. 

Th frank and candid statements of the learned professor are 
worthy of thoughtful consideration. 

As an illustration showing the lack of participation by Demo¬ 
crats in their own primary, and the apparent participation of 
Democrats in the Republican primary, we have copied a few fig¬ 
ures from the Wisconsin Blue Book of 1907, in the primary con¬ 
test for Governor and the election that followed: 

Adams County, Primary Election .—The town of Adams cast for 
the Democratic candidates 11 votes; for the Republican candi¬ 
dates 72 votes. 

Election .— The same town cast for the Democratic candidates 
28 votes; for the Republican candidate 67 votes showing 5 


110 


more Republican votes and 17 less Democratic votes cast at the 
primary than at the election. 

Primary Election .— The town of Big Flats cast for the Demo¬ 
cratic candidates 2 votes; for the Republican candidates 44 votes. 

Election .— The same town cast for the Democratic candidate 
15 votes and for the Republican candidate 36 votes, or 13 less 
Democratic votes and 8 more Republican votes at the primary 
than at the election. 

In the entire county of Adams, at the primary election, there 
were cast for the Republican candidates 830 votes, and for the 
Democratic candidates 44 votes, while at the election which fol¬ 
lowed there were cast for the Democratic candidate 212 votes, and 
the Republican candidate 699 votes, or 179 less Democratic votes 
and 131 more Republican votes at the primary than at the 
election. 

An examination of the primary and election returns from the 
rural counties will disclose the fact that this condition prevails 
with rare exceptions all through the State. 

In Milwaukee County a similar comparison discloses the fact 
that at the primary there were cast for all Republican candidates 
for governor 27,191 votes, and for the Democratic candidates 
2,301 votes; for the Social Democrats 2,197 votes. At the elec¬ 
tion which followed the Republican candidate received 24,521 
votes, the Democratic candidate received 12,856, and the Social 
Democrat received 17,061, which goes to show that the Republican 
candidates at the primary received 2,670 more votes than the 
successful Republican candidate received at the election. 

This was presidential year and it is probable that substantially 
the full strength of the Republican party was out at the election. 

The results above show that either large numbers of Democrats 
vote Republican tickets at the primary or that the Republicans do 
not support their candidate after his nomination. 

The Blue Book referred to is returned with our report for 
further reference. 

Many witnesses were examined upon both sides of the question 
in the city of Milwaukee. Among those who condemned the law 
were TIon. Edward T. Fairchild, Republican State senator, who 
asserted that the Primary Law has not benefited the State admin is- 


120 


tration in any respect, and that so far as any existing evils of the 
convention system are concerned, he had always thought it was 
more of a desire on the part of certain men to get the public’s 
attention and hold it rather than to cure existing evils, that the 
primary idea was advanced. The evil influence of money had 
been aggravated rather than lessened. 

He contended that under this system there was “ less govern¬ 
ment by the people and more government of the people.” “ Candi¬ 
dates spring up who have some theory or idea which they can 
present in a catchy way and when all have formulated their notions 
of government before the campaign is over you haven’t anything 
except a general mixup or a fight between individuals for the 
office.” 

Senator Fairchild thought that the old system needed to pro¬ 
vide throughout the State for the election of delegates at the 
primaries for all conventions and doing away with the inter¬ 
mediate convention to select delegates to some other convention. 
This occasioned more criticism than any other feature of practice 
under the convention system, and in this connection, he added, 
“ but your voters in New York will surely make a mistake if you 
do away with the State convention. The bringing together of the 
people from all over the State is a mighty valuable thing in politi¬ 
cal life and in the social and economic life of your state.” (1605.) 

Referring to the contest for United States senator in 1908, he 
mentioned the fact that Senator LaFollette was elected by the 
Legislature without a popular vote, and that Senator Stevenson 
had been a candidate for the same office about ten years ago before 
the Legislature and failed, while he succeeded under the primary 
system in securing thirty-one per cent of the Republican vote, 
which was subsequently ratified by the Legislature. 

Special interests are not handicapped and prevented from nam¬ 
ing candidates under this system, as they can easily and quietly 
get control during the primary campaign. 

The claim that a candidate thus nominated is more directly 
responsible to the people than under the old system is a fallacy. 
He is under obligation to certain individuals who get back of him 
and elect him, and it may be a very small percentage of the voters, 
while under the other system he is under obligations to his party 
and party representatives. 


Mr. Frank M. Hoyt, a lawyer and the president of the school 
board of the city of Milwaukee, but having held no political posi¬ 
tion except for some years chairman and secretary of the Demo¬ 
cratic county committee, characterized the Primary Law as vicious. 
It is enormously expensive to fhe public, builds up a clique of office 
holders who enter into such combinations that an independent can 
hardly break in; the advantages arising from the association and 
getting together of men interested in political affairs in the caucus 
and convention is lost; in a convention the delegates see the man 
that they are voting for and become acquainted with him and 
can form a better opinion of his character than they can from his 
photographs published through the newspapers. 

It is enormously expensive to the candidates and prohibits a 
poor man from making a canvas for any important office. So far 
as the interest of the voters in coming out to the primary is con¬ 
cerned it is not genuine. They are swamped with letters and 
circulars requesting them to go and vote for this one and that 
one, as they are urged by their friends to do, and it is impossible 
for them to pass any intelligent judgment upon candidates in one 
case out of fifty. While there was more or less trading done in 
conventions, Mr. IToyt said that his experience was that the cases 
of corruption were very rare. 

Mr. Hoyt said that he had talked with many of the members of 
the Legislature who voted for Senator Stevenson, and that they 
had privately expressed to him that they voted for Senator Steven¬ 
son in the Legislature because they felt bound by the result of the 
primary election, and not because they desired that he should be 
senator. 

The wisdom of electing a man as the junior senator from Wis¬ 
consin who is about eightv-one years of age is questioned. 

Mr. Hoyt also gave his experience in endeavoring to find accept¬ 
able candidates to run for aldermen under the primary; in one 
instance in the interests of the party and for the purpose of 
getting rid of two very objectionable jnen who were members of 
the board, hr- interviewed at least a dozen business men, not one 
of whom would 'consent to run because of the double election. 
This, he says, is typical of the situation everywhere. 

Hon. David S. Rose, who is now serving the tenth year and 
fifth term as mayor of Milwaukee, characterized himself as a 


“ thoroughbred Democrat.” He said he had been active in Wis¬ 
consin politics for thirty years, was familiar with the operation 
of the caucus and convention that prevailed in the State until 
about three years ago, and had had opportunity to observe the 
practical operation of the Primary Law in Wisconsin. Mayor Rose 
has been nominated twice under the Primary Law and subse¬ 
quently elected. He is a man who apparently has the courage of 
his convictions when he says: “ I regard the Primary Law as the 

most vicious system that was ever devised by human ingenuity, 
and 1 think 1 can give reasons for my faith.” (1632.) 

The mayor described political conditions in the city and the 
actual operation of the law in vigorous language, which it is 
impossible to repeat at length here. The bitterness resulting from 
the primary campaign is so intense that a very large percentage 
of those who supported the defeated candidate refuse to support 
the successful candidate, although of his own political party. 
Pre-primary organizations requiring a great effort and the ex¬ 
penditure of considerable money had to be made by all candidates. 
The organization of the successful candidate continued after the 
election, but that of the defeated candidate went to pieces. 

The members of one party constantly nominated the candidates 
of the other for the purpose of defeating him at the polls. 

The mayor did not see how it was possible to require a party 
enrollment so as to prevent a man from changing his mind as to 
his politics as often as he wishes to; that any other rule would 
be disastrous to our form of government. 

The Social Democrats, who are very strong in the city of 
Milwaukee, have no contests in their primaries as they are a due- 
paying organization and select their candidates to go on - the 
primary ticket by some sort of referendum vote. This leaves 
them free to act with one party or the other for the purpose of 
securing weak candidates whom their men selected by their own 
method can oppose. It may be said in this connection that there 
are a large number of Social Democrats who are members of the 
city council. 

In the spring of 1908 there were six candidates for nomination 
for the office of mayor, two Democratic candidates, three Repub¬ 
lican candidates and one Social Democratic candidate. There 


123 


Avere five different organizations affected and the pre-primary 
campaign lasted ten weeks. A large amount of money was spent 
by all of the candidates. As soon as the nominations were made 
the individual organizations disintegrated and the partisan feeling 
that had been engendered between the candidates at the pre¬ 
primary campaign asserted itself at the election and the Social 
Democratic candidate, who had had no contest, had 2,476 more 
votes than the Republican candidate, and came within 2,219 votes 
of defeating Mayor Rose upon the Democratic ticket. 

Under the old system of electing United States senators, Sen¬ 
ator Quarles, a poor man, defeated Senator Stevenson, a. reputed 
millionaire. Senator Qaurles is now the United States district 
judge of this district. 

Mr. Edward Hinkel, city clerk of Milwaukee, furnished the 
Committee with copies of the expense accounts of candidates for 
primary elections for city officers. 

Louis A. Dahlmann, Republican candidate for mayor: 


Salaries of headquarters of employees. $1,250 00 

Advertising. 3,520 69 

Services. 1,225 00 

Rent. 530 00 

Hall rent. 350 00 

Carriages. 325 00 

Services. 1,225 00 

Postage. 450 00 

Incidentals. 250 00 


Total. $7,900 00 


The salary of the office is $4,000 and the term is two years. 
Mr. Dahlman received 2,590 votes, the least of any of the candi¬ 
dates, and his expenses were a little over three dollars a vote. 

John T. Kelly, Republican candidate for mayor: 

Total expense. $3,205 80 

The items of his statement covers nearly four pages and 
includes rent of halls, etchings and cartoons, zinc cartoons, adver¬ 
tising and programs, advertising in addition to bill programs, 


















124 


Royal League programs, reporting and transcribing speeches, mes¬ 
senger service ($334.95), 100 campaign posters and a large num¬ 
ber of other items of printing and advertising, cigars, lantern 
slides. He received 6,645 votes. 

T. J. Pringle, the successful candidate for mayor in the Repub¬ 
lican party, filed a statement showing expenses amounting to 
$6,141.02. There are thirteen different items under the head of 
“ Payments to various persons.” About $3,150 of this sum was 
paid for advertising and printing and a considerable sum for 
cigars and refreshments. Mr. Pringle received 8,262 votes. 

W. G. Graebner, Democratic candidate for mayor, spent 
$2,488.23 and was unsuccessful. His advertising and printing 
bill amounted to about $675, besides $46 for a half tone and $45 
for a press agent. Mr. Graebner received 8,068 votes. 

David S. Rose, the successful Democratic candidate, expended 
$5,223.89. Mayor Rose received 18,048 votes. 

The Democratic vote cast at the primary for all candidates for 
mayor was about 3,300 more than the vote cast for the Democratic 
candidate for mayor at the election, and the Republican primary 
vote for mayor was about 2,000 less than the vote cast at the 
election for the successful Republican candidate. 

The printing of the primary tickets, etc., cost the city $7,805.10. 
It is quite customary for candidates to have sample ballots printed 
with their name X-marked, and these are distributed throughout 
the city so as to instruct the voters how' to vote for the particular 
candidate in whose interest the ballots are circulated. 

Mr. J. F. Donovan, a lawyer, of Milwaukee, and unsuccessful 
Democratic candidate for Congress and for district attorney, stated 
that, from his observation of the working of the Wisconsin Primary 
Law, it is a farce and does not accomplish what was intended to be 
accomplished by the framers of the law, if they did intend it to 
accomplish any reforms. 

His statements substantially corroborated the views expressed 
by Mayor Rose. He also condemned the placing of candidates 
upon the ticket in alphabetical order. The benefit which the can¬ 
didate has, whose name appears at the top, where there are a 
number of candidates, was, we believe, admitted by every witness 
before the Committee in every State, whether commending or 




125 


condemning the Primary Law, and in at least five of the States 
visited, the rotating system has been adopted by statute. 

Hon. C. E. Estabrook, of Milwaukee, a Republican lawyer, 
who has served five terms in the State Legislature and was Attor¬ 
ney-General of the State for four years, thought it would not be 
wise under present conditions to repeal the Primary Law in Wis¬ 
consin, although it has not come up to what its friends claimed 
for it; it has been unsatisfactory and is not a success. It failed 
in a very marked degree to bring out first class men for public 
office and to make merit, ability and efficiency the controlling 
factors in selecting candidates for public office. 

It has excluded “ the office seeking the man ” almost entirely. 
If the caucus and State convention could have been preserved 
and the abuses which had grown up under that system corrected 
by the Legislature, it would have been better. 

A State convention composed of men who are not running for 
office is a great deal better equipped to select a State ticket than 
the people are in an unorganized way under the primary election. 
Discussion of public topics and principles can only be had through 
the medium of such convention. The witness said that it was 
no reflection upon the voter to say that a State convention was 
better equipped to select candidates for State offices than the 
people, for it is to the credit of the great mass of people that they 
are attending to their business rather than to politics. While 
there is some advantage in having the candidates make the plat¬ 
form, still the old method of having the same convention that 
nominates the candidates make the platform, he believed to be 
better. In all of his years’ experience as a delegate to State and 
national conventions, there was very little charge of corruption and 
improper use of money. 

It was the effort of the Committee in seeking information as 
to the working of the jwimary laws to obtain expressions from 
men who were not office holders or candidates for offiee, but who, 
because of their patriotic citizenship, have made an unprejudiced 
study of political systems. It is unfortunately true, as before 
stated, and to quite an extent observable by the Committee, that 
the views of strong partisans or close followers of one faction 
or the other, coincided with the well known ideas of the factional 


126 


or party leaders. Whether the opinions of such men were to any 
degree influenced by the opinions of their factional leaders, or 
whether they were members of a particular faction of the domi¬ 
nant party because of the fact that they entertained views similar 
to those of the leaders, it is, of course, impossible for the Com¬ 
mittee to determine. The fact, however, will be recognized as 
common to all factional or party politics. 

Probably the best informed man in the State of Wisconsin 
upon the subject of primary elections is Emanuel L. Philip, of 
Milwaukee, a Republican, who has never held an office and has 
never been a candidate for office, although some years ago having 
been a member of the executive committee of the State committee 
of his party. He is the president of the Union Refrigerator and 
Transportation Company. For ten years, since the primary ques¬ 
tion came up for discussion, he has made a particular study of this 
method of nominations, a portion of the time having an employed 
secretary for the purpose of gathering data from Wisconsin, by 
watching political movements and in endeavoring to ascertain the 
effect that these changes have upon the body politic (1776). 

Mr. Philip began by stating that the Legislature of Hew York 
acted wisely when it appointed a Committee to investigate the 
workings of the direct primary in states where the law is in 
operation, before adopting it. “ I feel,” said he, “ confident that 
you will take home with you evidences of failure and disappoint¬ 
ment in this and other States where it has been tried that will 
cause your people to reject it. It would have been well for the 
people of this State if they had waited for a demonstration in 
other States of the advantages of this method of making nomina¬ 
tions over the party convention plan before they adopted it; how¬ 
ever, the agitation for it produced new political leaders whose 
personal interest demanded an immediate enactment of the law, 
if they were to continue their leadership, and our people, influ¬ 
enced by the plausible theories advanced in support of the scheme, 
permitted themselves to be literally talked into it” (1778). 

Because conventions in Milwaukee some years prior to this were 
conducted in a disgraceful manner until an act of the Legislature, 
amended from time to time and applying only to Milwaukee 
county, provided a legal primary day and primary ballot. In 1897 


127 


this was extended to practically the entire State. It preserved con¬ 
ventions and did not disrupt political parties. It was satisfactory 
in its operation and no specific complaint was ever registered 
against it, except by a few radical reformers, until 1901, when 
Governor LaFollette organized an active campaign for direct pri¬ 
maries, which passed the Legislature in 1903 and was adopted 
by a small vote at the June election in 1904 (1781). There was 
no real necessity for any radical change in the nominating system 
when this law was passed. Wisconsin was not a corrupt State and 
from the time the State was admitted into the Union up until 
1903, no election fraud, real or alleged, had ever received the 
attention of the Legislature, and few, if any, of the courts. 

The laws regulating the primaries had been amended from 
time to time for twelve years and a splendid system was being 
adopted that was working satisfactorily. 

The argument which had most force was that it would bring 
the government closer to the people by giving them the right to 
select their own public officers by a direct vote and would as a 
consequence destroy the influence of the boss. In its practical 
operation that has not proved true. It was also claimed that it 
would improve the 'personnel of the public officials. This has 
not occurred. In proof of his assertion that the personnel of public 
officials has not been improved under the law, Mr. Philip men¬ 
tioned the fact that at the time of the adoption of the law, the 
State was represented in Washington by Senator John C. Spooner 
and J. V. Quarles, now a Federal judge. The State is now 
represented by Senators LaFollette and Stevenson, the latter a m*an 
upwards of 81 years of age. lie also called attention to the fact 
that at that time out of eleven congressmen, the Wisconsin dele¬ 
gation held the chairmanships of the Judiciary, of Affairs of the 
District of Columbia, of the Committee on Insular Affairs, and 
had an important position on the Committee on Ways and Means; 
also on Military Affairs, and the Committee on Marine and Fish¬ 
eries and the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. To-day the 
State has one chairmanship in the lower house of Congress, and 
for the first time the State has furnished Congress a prominent 
member on accoustics and ventilation. He denied that the loss 
of prestige on the part of the Wisconsin congressional delegation 


128 


was due to the antagonism of the speaker, and claimed that it 
was due to the fact that each man represented a personal platform, 
which he was obliged to frame in order to secure his nomination 
and does not represent the Republican party of Wisconsin; it is a 
situation that they have made themselves and are themselves 
responsible for. 

As to State officers, he said they had always had good men; that 
a long line of distinguished gentlemen had occupied the Gover- 
uor’s chair, and there had been no better Governor than Governor 
Scoville, and that the present incumbents were no better than their 
predecessors. 

Before Wisconsin had a Primary Law the ruling party was 
responsible for the acts of the Legislature; now nobody is 
responsible and responsibility cannot be located; it is divided 
between 133 people; each shifts it upon the other. The Legisla¬ 
ture is divided into little cliques; each clique has a leader, who 
has some political axe to grind. The fact of this can be easily 
seen in the expenditures of the State, which have doubled in the 
past ten years. The public business was formerly run on about 
three and a half millions and it now takes over seven. There have 
been no very expensive public operations except that recently a 
new capitol building has been started. 

In regard to the minor offices there has never been so much 
scandal as in the past five or six years. They have meddled more 
in politics; they have been used in politics in a manner that no 
party would be responsible for, and it has been done because there 
is no party responsibility for any of these things. The action 
of the game wardens and factory inspectors is a matter of public 
scandal. 

The public morals have not been elevated by the change in the 
method of making nominations. Never before in the history of the 
State has so much money been expended in campaigns as at pres¬ 
ent; never before were so many open charges of corruption and 
unlawful use of money. 

To substantiate this statement Mr. Philip presented a great 
many figures, some of which we will incorporate. 

lie covers a period of ten years during which time, the “ Pub- 




129 


licity x\ct, ’ which was passed in 1897, has been in force, both 
before and since the adoption of the direct primary: 


All candidates for mayor before the Primary Election Law: 


1900 . 

1902 . 

1904 ... 

All candidates for mayor under the Primary 

1906 . 

1908 .. 

Other city officials before the Primary Law: 
1904 . 

Other city officials under the Primary Law: 

1906 . 

1908 . 

All State officers before the Primary Law: 

1898 ... 

1900 . 

1902 . 

1904 . 

All State officers under the Primary Law: 

1906 . 

1908 . 


$3,081 

50 

1,966. 

.64 

627 

25 

Election Li 

aw: 

$14,735 

21 

25,513 

00 

$3,203 

00 

$20,638 

89 

30,039 

00 

$8,230 

93 

13,547 

95 

17,820 

61 

9,628 

60 

$27,915 

49 

50,479 

49 


The same* abnormal increase in the expenses of candidates 
appears from the statements filed with the county clerks. 


In Milwaukee County: 

1898 103 statements were filed and expenses 

reported . $14,887 91 

1900 67 statements filed, reporting . 24,952 58 

1902 53 statements filed, reporting. 27,792 14 

1906 The first year under the Primary Law, 96 

statements filed, reporting . 69,873 03 

1908 87 statements filed, reporting . 46,308 87 


9 

























130 


It is not true that these increased expenses are caused by the 
increased number of candidates, as a comparison of the number 
of statements filed in each year will show. 

The expenses incurred by the candidates for mayor after 
the primary have already been mentioned. Before the primary 
for all candidates they were as follows: 


1898 . $1,574 60 

1900 . 3,081 50 

1902 . . . 1,966 65 


The first year under the primary the total was $14,735.81, and 
the second year under the primary the total was $25,513. 

It will be thus seen that prior to the primary election the can¬ 
didates never expended more than $3,881, as against $25,513 in 
1908 under the primary system. 

These reports were always under oath and Mr. Rose’s oath is no 
better now than it was in 1902 or 1900. 

Mr. Philip also went minutely into the expense statement filed 
by all State officers both before and after the Primary Election 
Law and similar increases appeared. 

In the congressional districts, the following statements were 


filed: 

1898 Ten congressmen reported . $19,437 75 

1900 Same reported. 19,834 88 

1906 The first year under the primary system . . 45,327 78 

1908 . • 50,517 79 

1899 In the United States Senate there were five 

candidates who reported. 6,760 60 

1903 John C. Spooner was elected without opposi¬ 
tion and reported no expense. 

1905 Mr. LaEollette was elected and reported. . 26,287 00 

1907 Mr. Stevenson was elected against one can¬ 

didate and reported . 6,137 89 


There was no contest in the primary in 1907, the Legislature 
being in session when Senator Spooner resigned. 















131 


In 1900 four candidates reported $192,977.59 “ to the best 
of their recollection.” The successful senator reported $107,000. 

Mr. Philip contended that the expenditure of this enormous 
amount of money would not improve the public morals, but on 
the contrary hurt the public morals, not that the money was spent 
corruptly or that votes were bought, but to spend that amount of 
money under any system you may devise in procuring public 
office gives young men a wrong idea of elections, and public morals 
are necessarily depraved by it. The money is spent in employing 
men in different parts of the State, who have lists of names, and 
who are in a sense the boss of his community. For hire he becomes 
active in the candidate’s behalf, sees many people, hires teams to 
bring voters in and does whatever he sees fit with the money. 
They procure advertising space in newspapers, give donations to 
various public institutions. The active politician who is in politics 
for money, for what he can get out of it, generally gets “ next ” 
and gets all he can. Mr. Philip did not think that the newspaper 
advertisements of candidates were an educational advantage. The 
promulgation of party doctrines and the distribution of literature 
is commendable but the personal self laudatory statements of 
candidates is to be condemned. 

Some of the strongest advocates of the Primary Law repudiated 
it when defeated under it. Mr. F. E. McGovern was a candi¬ 
date for district attorney and was fairly defeated in the primary, 
and stated a day after the primary that he was satisfied with the 
results; a few days later he thought differently, and ran upon 
an independent ticket against the regular Republican nominee 
and was elected. 

Mr. H. L. Eckern, an able leader and*speaker of the assembly, 
was defeated in the primary in 1908 for the nomination to the 
assembly. He was not satisfied with the will of the people and 
ran independently and was defeated. After Mr. Isaac Stevenson, 
present United States senator, had carried the primary in 1908, 
Senator LaFollette, the apostle of the primary, was not satisfied 
with the will of the people and has been fighting Mr. Stevenson 
ever since. Special reasons for repudiating it are always urged. 
These instances are mentioned merely to show that the men who 
were leaders in advocating it have shown that they believe in it 


132 


only wlien it works to their benefit. This is not consistency. 
Mr. Philip further contended that it had disorganized parties and 
built up personal political machines. Republican clubs and 
Democratic clubs for the promulgation of party policies and 
party principles have disappeared from Milwaukee and other 
cities of the State and in their place are Stalwart and TIalfbreed 
organizations. Were it not for factional politics there would be 
no party in Wisconsin to-day, unless it would be the Socialistic 
party, which maintains an excellent organization. In the Legis¬ 
lature the Republican factions are at war with each other, propos¬ 
ing and securing the appointment of rival investigation com¬ 
mittees, not for the purpose of purifying the State and punishing 
offenders, but to prove that the respective leaders are rascals who 
should be driven from office. (1800.) 

The Primary Law was supposed to destroy the influence of the 
boss. Mr. Philip said that so far as he knew Wisconsin had never 
had any very influential boss until 1900. There* had been men 
who did sway some things in politics; men follow leaders and 
always will. Mr. Keyes was supposed to be somewhat of a boss and 
Senator Quarles was sometimes referred to as a boss, but the State 
never had a complete all-around successful political boss until Mr. 
LaFollette. The proposition that the Pirmary Law will abolish 
the boss is wrong on the face of it; the more politics are compli¬ 
cated the greater is his opportunity; in other words, the greater 
is the opportunity for leadership. The, Primary Law has com¬ 
plicated politics very much and now the State has not only a 
large boss but quite a number of bosslets that work under him. 

Under this system the rich man has every opportunity over 
the poor man and always will have it; no matter how the law is 
amended, where a candidate has got to go to the people to get 
acquainted with all the people and to advertise himself to them, 
he cannot do it without money. Row and then there is an office 
holder who is pointed to as a poor man; and this is probably true, 
but he has rich friends; and poor men run for office under this 
system and obligate themselves to men who furnish the money. 
Pew men give large sums of money purely out of patriotism; 
there is generally some string to it. 

Any man with the same amount of money can obtain the same 
results obtained by Senator Stevenson in the last campaign for 


United States senator, under this system. Senator LaFollette is 
not reputed to he a rich man. The junior senator, however, claims 
that he spent vast sums of money on him, that he was his financial 
backer, and demanded the office and assistance of Mr. LaFollette 
because of the large amounts of money which he had spent in his 
behalf. 

It was represented that the people under this system could 
vote directly for the candidate of their choice. The public infer 
from that statement that any man whom they may wish to vote 
for can be placed upon the ticket; that is not the fact. In order 
to go on the ticket a petition must be circulated to be signed by a 
certain per cent of the voters. The candidate must first select 
men to obrain these signatures; in other words he must nominate 
himself to the office. The practice is to hire men and pay them 
so much apiece for the names. When the voter goes to the primary, 
instead of voting for the man of his choice his only right is to 
choose between those who are on the ticket. He might, of course, 
write in a name, but that would be a mere waste of time; so that 
the voter who thinks that under this system he has obtained tiu 
great privilege of nominating the men for all the offices in the 
State, who are his own particular choice, finds that the only choice 
he has is in discriminating between the men who have nominated 
themselves. (1807.) 

.Never was a greater farce put before the people than this idea 
that under this system the people are going to be able to vote for 
a man of their own choice. Every man upon the ticket may be 
unknown to the voter or may be objectionable, if he does know 
them. And in concluding his remarks upon this subject Mr.. 
Philip said: “I would rather trust the honesty and the citizen¬ 
ship of a thousand men assembled in a convention to make a 
nomination for me than I would a petition that has been paid for 
at so much per name.” (1808.) 

He also referred to the fact that there were no longer any party 
clubs or organizations for the promotion of party interest and 
principles and that it would be impossible to organize such in the 
mixed condition of Wisconsin politics, and the reason for it is 
that men are nominated, place themselves on the ticket rather, to 
be nominated without any party, without any reference to party 


134 


affiliations or party organizations. They may call themselves 
Republicans or Democrats, that does not matter; the test is their 
party affiliation. (1808.) 

The requirement that only those who have been nominated for 
office assemble for the purpose of making a party platform is also 
condemned, for the reason that every man participating is willing 
to declare for anything that will enable him to win. It is not a 
platform of party principles which a party may follow; it is a 
temporary rag upon which to win. They are not willing to make 
a platform there of principles upon which they would be willing 
to go down rather than to surrender the principle. 

The Primary Law is also unfortunate in that it engenders so 
much bitterness. There is too much personal politics in it which 
always leads to bitter animosities between men; there were no 
such animosities up to the time of the “ reform age ” in 1900. 
The two parties faced each other and contended for different 
principles of government. 

Mr. Philip attributed the multiplicity of laws passed by the 
State Legislature to the fact that there was no party responsibility 
for anything. The Session Laws of 1909 contain 2,335 pages, 
Gil pages more than the first of the three volumes of the com¬ 
bined work of the Legislature for ninety-eight years preceding. 
Everything is legislated apart from any party responsibility. The 
result is a great mass of worthless, useless legislation, which is 
merely a burden upon the people. (1813.) 

The witness regarded the Primary Law as merely a step towards 
pure Democracy. To provide for the nomination of candidates by 
representatives in convention does not mean that the people can¬ 
not be trusted nor that they ought not to have the right to govern 
themselves. It simply means that they will get better results by 
appointing certain men to select their candidates for them than 
they can possibly do by trying to select from those who nominate 
themselves. Few men are well known to an^ large number of 
people and in their anxiety to obtain office they misrepresent them¬ 
selves through advertisements and otherwise, and most voters do 
not get enough information concerning anybody to make a really 
intelligent choice. 

The repeal of the law need not be expected until the men who 


135 


are responsible for it are out of politics. The fight which brought 
it upon the State was very bitter and they are not going to go 
back; they would regard it as political suicide to admit that after 
all they were mistaken. It took a long time to adopt it and it 
may take a long time to get rid of it. 

If the State had annual instead of biennial primaries the 
results would be still worse. 

The fact that each candidate must in the first instance nomi¬ 
nate himself and then go out and advertise himself, prevents many 
who have distinguished themselves in private life for their in¬ 
tegrity, business ability and public spirit, and who would make 
ideal public officers, from being candidates under this system. 
The result is that public office will continue to be the inheritance 
of a class of men who continually seek office. 

Mr. Philip called the attention of the Committee to the charac* 
ter of the advertising, and during the reecss the Committee visited 
the public library and examined files of city papers which were 
filled with sensational advertisements of candidates before the 
primary. 

This system will work better in a small subdivision where the 
people may know the candidates than in a large one. The larger 
the population the more complicated must be the machinery. 

Referring again to the use of money he said that the idea that 
the people would be so aroused as to prevent the occurrence again 
of the use of so much money in obtaining an office, was not in 
accord with human nature; that if any of the money was used 
for the purpose of debauching voters the man once debauched 
will be more easily debauched the second time. 

The interest is usually centered upon the head of the ticket and 
the public generally takes but very little interest in the balance 
of it. He did not think the proposed “ second choice ” plan was 
feasible, as it would be confusing to the voters. Published 
articles upon the Primary Law by Mr. Philip were furnished by 
him to the Committee and appear in the record at pages 1829 to 
1853, inclusive. 

His conclusions, separately numbered under the title of “ Tried 
and Found Wanting/ 7 appear at page 1839. 

Hr. J. M. Eiffel, a physician and surgeon of Milwaukee, who 


has never held any political office, but has been interested in poli¬ 
tics and as a member of the State and county Republican com¬ 
mittee and treasurer and chairman of the city committee, thought 
that the Primary Election Law was based upon a proper theory 
that the people should nominate their candidates with as little 
machinery as possible and that there should be few, if any, middle¬ 
men between the people and their candidates; but when it comes 
to practical operation of the law there are inherent defects which 
appear, not only to the exponents of the law, but to its original 
enemies. These inherent defects the doctor mentioned quite at 
length along the same lines described by Mr. Philip. He empha¬ 
sized considerably the power of the public press whose influence 
has been purchased by a political boss, or which is owned by some 
prominent political leader. 

If there is to be a change from the representative system to the 
direct system he thought it should be gradual and not so radical 
as in Wisconsin. 

Before a nomination is made for a public office, as a rule, there 
is no clear consensus of opinion or crystalization of thought of the 
people on one or two men for that office. In other words, the 
people do not know who their candidates are to be until the candi¬ 
dates select themselves. 

Hon. Edward Scofield, former governor of the State of Wis¬ 
consin, was unable to appear before the Committee in person 
but communicated his views upon the Wisconsin primary in a 
letter addressed to the Committee under date of August 18, 1909, 
which appears at page 1932 of the record. Ilis observations were 
of a general character and his conclusions substantially the same 
as those given by Mr. Philip, which have been referred to at 
length. lie says: “ I have no hesitancy in declaring that every 
objection raised to the primary election idea previous to its enact¬ 
ment into a law has been sustained by the practical test given it 
in this State in the several elections held under its provisions. 
Every disadvantage pointed out by its opponents, and many not 
anticipated, have been shown by its operation, and it is difficult 
to say wherein it has demonstrated any very great advantage over 
the old convention system.” 

As an instance of the inability on the part of the nublic to 


know who the candidates were lie cited the case where two years 
ago the richest, most important assembly district in the State of 
Wisconsin was represented in the lower house of the Legislature bv 
a colored man of no special ability. After the election, when the 
newspapers began to comment upon the election of a colored man to 
represent this important district, there was an uproar which 
showed plainly that the majority of the voters of that district 
would not have voted for the candidate had they known that he 
was colored. Had he been a man of extraordinary ability the 
fact of his color might have made no difference. Instances of the 
election of totally unfit men might be indefinitely multiplied, and 
in every case the election was due to the voters’ lack of knowledge 
of the candidate. (1937.) 

Governor Scofield, referring to party allegiance, said (1940) : 
“ I am j ust old-fashioned enough to believe that the best safeguard 
of the public interests lies in two strongly organized, evenly 
balanced parties. I am a firm believer in the old doctrine of party 
allegiance, and I believe that the present breakdown of party lines 
is leading us into danger.” 

He attributed the disruption of the parties to the operations 
of the Primary Law. 

“ If,” said he, “ the Primary Law can be successfully operated 
at all, it is only in the small political unit where men know each 
other, but it has shown its weakness in even so small a political 
unit as an assembly district, but I believe that it has a sphere of 
usefulness in the town or ward election, and in the election of 
delegates to conventions it is far better than the old-fashioned 
caucus.” 

He referred to the General Primary Election Law in Mil¬ 
waukee prior to the present law for the election of delegates and 
minor offices and it seemed to work well, and said that if this 
law had been applied to the whole State for the election of delegates 
to conventions, and if there had been a law compelling the holding 
of these conventions by all parties on the same day throughout the 
State, it would have cured nine-tenths of the ills complained of 
under the old system. 

Mr. E. T. Melms, a member of the Socialist party and an aider- 
man in the city of Milwaukee, and chairman of the State Com- 


138 


mittee of the Socialist Democratic party, spoke of the attitude 
of the Socialists toward the Primary Election Law, and said that 
it was complied with by the Socialist Democratic party only in so 
far as they were compelled to comply with it by law. They felt 
that the method of organization that they had maintained for a 
number of years prior was an improvement over the present law. 
They select their candidates by a process of referendum among 
their members, who are a due-paying organization, as they are 
firm believers in the “ initiative ” and “ referendum/’ and these 
candidates were placed upon the primary ticket by authorized 
petition so that but few votes were necessary to nominate them. 
He denied, however, that the due-paying members of their organi¬ 
zation participated in the primaries of the other parties, as is 
generally charged by the members of the other parties. The 
organization has become exceedingly strong in the city of Mil¬ 
waukee, casting frequently more votes than the Republican party 
and nearly as many as the Democratic party in that city. 

Mr. Melms said that he believed that every voter should be able 
to read and write sufficiently to cast his own vote without the 
assistance of the inspector, as is frequently done now. Under 
this system men are practically dragged to the polls, men who 
don’t know how to vote and are voted like cattle. He would pro¬ 
hibit the expenditure of any money for conveyances for taking 
people to the polls. 

Their method of selecting candidates within the lines of their 
own party and of placing the name of but one candidate for the 
office upon the primary ballot keeps the party loyal and absolutely 
prevents the bitterness so frequently aroused in primary contests. 

Hot all the witnesses, who appeared before the Committee in 
the city of Milwaukee, either voluntarily or upon invitation, took 
a pessimistic view of the Wisconsin Primary Law. Among the 
strong advocates and defenders of the law were: 

Erancis E. McGovern, a lawyer of ability, who was elected 
district attorney of Milwaukee County upon an independent ticket 
in 1906, after he had been defeated in the Republican primary. 
Mr. McGovern was also one of the four candidates for United 
States senator in 1908 and was defeated there. His evidence, 
which is found at pages 1655-1702 of the record, is a strong and 


eloquent academic plea for the direct nominations system. He 
said: “ I think I can speak impartially in this matter because 

every time I ran as a candidate under the old system I was elected, 
and every time I have sought nomination under the new system 
1 have been defeated, but my belief in the wisdom and in the 
merits of the Primary Election Law is just as strong as it was 
when the law was proposed for enactment. 

He believed that the Primary Election Law placed in the 
hands of the people directly the power of making nominations 
and by so doing practically abolishes this function of the political 
party. That it makes the public officials more directly responsible 
to the people and is a means towards the realization of the ulti¬ 
mate rule by the people in the sense in which the idea was enter¬ 
tained by those who founded our government. 

He did not believe there was so much bitterness as the result 
of the primary as there was under the convention system. While 
a great deal of money was expended by individuals, he did not 
regard that as a feature of the Primary Law and thought that 
the expenditures Avere as large under the old system, but Avere 
not disclosed. 

In his judgment, the laAV has a tendency to make the majority 
party stronger and the minority party Aveaker; it tends in a 
measure to disintegrate the minority party, but thought that the 
result of that would be more independent members of the minor¬ 
ity party, Avho would go over to the majority party, especially if 
there is a contest going on of sufficient interest to attract them, and 
if it is a contest of principle, if it is a matter that involves public 
welfare then the rallying to the support of the right element in 
the dominant party might be a good thing from the standpoint 
of the State. 

The experience of Wisconsin under the primary election law, 
he thought, had disclosed defects in their particular law, the most 
important of which Avas the participation of members of the 
minority party in the majority party’s contest, for the purpose 
of nominating weak candidates or for the purpose of carrying out 
a political program that has been arranged before hand, but he 
thought that the so-called 20 per cent amendment before referred 
to would remedy that. Also the fact that the names appearing 


140 


at the head of the ticket had a decided advantage was remedied 
by the rotation system which has been adopted. 

The “ second choice ” proposition is still a matter of specu¬ 
lation. 

The fact that voters did not discriminate as disclosed by the 
advantage obtained by the candidate whose name happened to 
begin with “A” is not, said he, an impeachment of the principle 
of the law, but of the intelligence of the voters, and if the law 
could be in operation long enough, the voters would become more 
intelligent. That any logical objection to the Primary Law is 
equally an objection and criticism of our whole form and theory 
of government. It is a criticism of popular rule, and the answer 
is not to do away with the Primary Election Law and thus avoid 
the evils of popular rule, but to remedy the weaknesses in the 
electorate by giving them an apportunity to exercise this power, 
and thus in the course of time to develop a sufficiently high stage 
of citizenship so that no man will vote for another because his 
name begins with A or Z. 

Formerly in the State of Wisconsin, naturalization was not 
required to entitle a person to vote, but any person who had lived 
a year in the State and ten days in the election precinct, might 
vote for any and every office. . Many could not speak the English 
language at all. This has now been remedied so that a man 
must be a fully naturalized citizen in order to vote, but there were 
still many who lacked sufficient education to vote intelligently. 

The people did not take so much interest in the primary as had 
been anticipated, which Mr. McGovern attributes to the fact that 
under the old system the people generally were not accustomed, in 
the selection of delegates at the caucus, to attend; but after they 
became aware of their power in the primary there would be a 
larger participation. 

He did not think that the organization built up by candidates 
before the primary and continued by the successful candidate 
after the primary could be in any sense called a political “ ma¬ 
chine.” Each candidate gathers about him his political friends 
and supporters and has a list of names to whom he sends political 
material and a number of assistants and friends upon whom 



Ill 


be calls for assistance; that there is a vast difference between 
an organization like that and a political machine. 

Mr. Henry L. Cochems, a lawyer of the Republican faith, and 
lesident of the city of Milwaukee, who has on several occasions 
been an unsuccessful candidate for Congress, was before the Com¬ 
mittee. Mr. Cochems will be remembered as the gentleman, who, 
at the last National Republican convention, presented the name 
of Senator LaFollette for President. 

lie followed substantially the same line of argument presented 
by Mr. McGovern. lie gave it as his impression that the Primary 
Law has been a vast improvement on the conditions that existed 
under the old conventions system, and thought that the error 
of a great deal of the testimony and argument made against 
the Primary Law arises from the fact that in contesting the law, 
they criticize the machinery of the primary for a great many 
things that are inherent in the electorate, in the body of the voters 
themselves. 

Necessarily more money was spent by candidates under this 
system because they had to come in contact with the people and 
not with the few who might control nominations, but the money 
spent in billing the county or the State, in advertising in news¬ 
papers and seeking to bring the attention of the voters to the vir¬ 
tues or the professed virtues of the candidate was an educational 
feature. 

Mr. Cochems thought that the primary election system could 
be improved by the addition of a second choice. He commended 
Mr. McGovern, who had repudiated the primary in his candidacy 
for district attorney of Milwaukee county and had become an 
independent candidate, because he did not believe the primary 
represented the real sentiment of the Republican party. 

There are some things that occur in the primary which are 
unfortunate, but these things might challenge the wisdom of our 
systems of election. “ The primary election system,” said he, 
“ puts a premium upon the eleventh hour slanderer and assassi¬ 
nator of character. I was a candidate myself for Congress here 
and at the eleventh hour, when I thought I had my fight won 
under this primary system, I found that the gentlemen opposing 
me had had in cold storage for three weeks a lot of untruthful 


142 


and perverted statements, which they saved until the Saturday 
preceding the Tuesday ; s primaries; so that it affords opportunity 
for men so disposed to fill themselves with that character of 
evidence that brings its penalties in due season ” (1726). What 
he called the “ picturesque side of politics ” is, in a measure, 
lost under the primary system — the opportunity which young men 
have to exploit themselves and express their views in a convention. 

He did not believe that the geographical location of candidates 
or their selection for race or business reasons had any particular 
place in the selection of the best men for the respective offices. 

Hon. H. L. Eckern, of Whitehall, Wisconsin, now deputy insur¬ 
ance commissioner, and formerly speaker of the assembly, also 
presented his views of the Wisconsin primary, following sub¬ 
stantially the same line of thought presented by Mr. McGovern 
and Mr. Cochems. Mr. Eckern also, it will be remembered, was 
defeated for renomination to the assembly in his own district as 
a candidate upon the Republican primary ticket, and after his 
defeat at the primary became an independent candidate by peti¬ 
tion, and Senator LaEollette came into his district to assist him 
in his candidacy. He was defeated, however, and was then ap¬ 
pointed to the position he now holds. 

One of the principal advantages of the primary system was that 
the people have two chances to select good men for office and 
eliminate those who are unworthy. 

While a large amount of money is expended in the operation 
of the Primary Law, more than Mr. Eckern believed to be desirable 
or necessary, still he claimed that there were cases where large 
sums of money had been expended under the old system. 

The expense is transferred very largely to the contest in the 
primary and after the primary is settled there is not very much 
expense at the election. If the parties were nearly equally balanced 
it might be necessary to expend more money during the election. 
He thought there should be some limit to expenditures and to 
die methods and objects of the expenditures. 

If, however, the expenditure is limited for the dissemination 
yf information one of the purposes of the Direct domination Law 
is defeated under present conditions. It is absolutly necessary 
that candidates and parties should be permitted to expend money 


143 

for the purpose of putting out educational matter, either in the 
form of literature or speeches. Mr. Eckern thought that a serious 
defect in the law was the failure always to secure a majority 
nomination; that under the old convention system this was ob¬ 
tained ; that under the present method a compact minority by 
concentrating its vote on one candidate nominates its candidate 
as against the majority which scatters its vote among a number, 
and that for the purpose of meeting this defect it will be neces¬ 
sary at some time to adopt a second choice or something of that 
nature. He said that they would like to have adopted the “ First 
and Second Choice ” .Law, and thought if it had been enacted in 
the first place the voters would easily have become used to it and 
it might have obviated a great many other difficulties. 

In the Legislature since the law came into effect there are still 
minority and majority leaders, blit the recent Legislatures have 
not divided sharply on party lines. Comparatively few measures 
have been stamped strictly “ party measures; ” one reason for that 
in Wisconsin has been that both parties are split into two factions 
and the line between the two factions in each party is quite as 
distinct as perhaps between the two parties on state questions.” 

While in State and national politics the Republican party wins 
as a rule, the majority of the municipalities and larger cities are 
under Democratic rule. 

Mr. Eckern thought that the system of electing delegates at 
primaries is far superior to the old caucus system, but believed 
that the complete primary is superior to both. 

The leaders of the party frequently get together before the 
primary and endeavor to agree upon particular candidates and 
specially the factional leaders, in order to reduce the number 
of candidates so as to insure the nomination of their own men. 

Observations on the Wisconsin System. 

1. That is the only State where special investigation was 
made which has adopted the so-called “ open primary.” While 
advocates and opponents alike condemn the practice of members 
of one party voting the primary ticket, of another, nevertheless 
there seems to be a strong sentiment against the abolition of the 
open primary, and adopting any form of enrollment which will 


144 


tend to prevent this practice. Some claim that to deprive a voter 
of the right to participate in any primary he pleases or to change 
his politics as frequently as he may desire is an interference 
with his constitutional rights, and that it will be utterly destructive 
of all independent action or participation in any of the primaries, 
and one of the principal objects of direct nominations is to pre¬ 
vent the dictation of nominations by political organizations or 
political bosses. 

2. In no state which we have studied are factional differences 
so marked and party organizations and discipline so broken up. 
While this seems to be admitted by all, there is a difference of 
opinion as to whether such conditions existed to any extent before 
the enactment of the Primary Election Law and whether it has 
increased since its operation. 

We are inclined to believe that the preponderance of evidence 
indicates that the majority party factional divisions have become 
more pronounced through the operation of the primary law. 

3. The first experiment of Wisconsin in the nomination of 
United States senator at the primary is exceedingly unfortunate, 
to put it mildly. It is a matter of public scandal, and the evidence 
taken upon the investigation by the Legislature subsequent to the 
primary may be read with profit and furnish a warning to other 
States who may be tempted to adopt this method of ascertaining 
the sentiment of the people in the selection of a United States 
senator. That the enormous amount of money expended by the 
successful candidate, who received but thirty-one per cent of the 
Republican vote cast, was instrumental in subverting what might 
otherwise have been a popular choice, cannot be denied. 

4. We commend biennial elections and longer terms for mem¬ 
ber of assembly, senators and the governor, if primary elections 
are to be had, so that political excitement may not interfere with 
the orderly conduct of business to such an extent as would be the 
case under a system of this kind where annual elections are held. 

5. The rotating system, where so many offices are to be filled 
and where there are frequently so many candidates for a single 
office, is essential to a fair distribution of the vote cast by the 
many, who either are unable to discriminate intelligently or do 




145 

not take the trouble to do so, except for the principal office at 
the head of the ticket. 

G. The large percentage of the majority party primary votes 
cast does not indicate a large participation on the part of such 
party voters, but a comparison of the returns indicates that quite 
a large proportion of those voters are members of the minority 
parties, who either because of urgent solicitation vote for can¬ 
didates upon the majority primary ticket or by concerted action 
do so for the purpose of nominating a weak candidate, whom 
they seek to defeat at the election. 

7. The amendment to the law made by the last Legislature 
under which the party candidates for any office must together 
cast at least 20 per cent, of the party vote, or be excluded from 
the party column upon the election ballot, may have a tendency 
to prevent indiscriminate cross voting between the parties, but 
in cases where there are no contests, it is liable to operate to the 
injury of a candidate, who must, under such circumstances, 
make an active canvass to get out his party vote or be deprived 
of the party privilege upon the election. We do not regard the 
amendment as of any value and believe that its results will be 
more harmful than otherwise. 

8. We cannot concur in the view that is expressed by some of 
the witnesses that the largely increased use of money in pri¬ 
mary campaigns has any educational advantage. From an ex¬ 
amination of the character of the advertising, self-laudatory state¬ 
ments of the candidates and extravagant claims made by them 
through the public press and by other printed matter, we believe 
that such methods are calculated to confuse and deceive voters, 
who have no means of determining the truthfulness of such 
statements. The use of so much money in a primary campaign 
cannot do otherwise than corrupt and debauch the electorate and 
the demands of the venal and corrupted voter will constantly 
increase under any such system until a canvass by a man of mod¬ 
erate means, who might even be willing to expend the money if 
he had it, is practically prohibited. 

9. The methods practiced by candidates of hiring solocitors to 
obtain signatures to their petitions results in no expression of 
the sentiment favorable to the particular candidate, and the peti- 

10 


146 


tions thus obtained are utterly valueless as indicating any pub¬ 
lic choice or crystallization of the better thought of the com¬ 
munity in favor of a particular candidate. The voter at the 
primary thus cannot vote for the man of his choice, but is simply 
permitted to discriminate between the several persons who have 
nominated themselves. 


147 


ILLINOIS. 

The Law. 

The State of Illinois has been peculiarly unfortunate in the 
enactment of four primary laws, which have subsequently been 
declared unconstitutional by the highest State court. 

At the time of our hearing in Chicago, August 23 and 24, the 
State had no Primary Election Law, the last act having shortly 
before been held to contain provisions contrary to the State con¬ 
stitution, and the entire act became void and of no effect by this 
decision. This was the law of 1908. 

Under this law, however, primary elections were held in 1908. 
It was State-wide, mandatory, conducted under the General Elec¬ 
tion Law with a fixed time and place for all parties jointly. 

It applied to all offices except presidential electors, trustees of 
the State University, township and school electors; there was also 
an advisory vote on the United States Senator. 

The names of the nominees were placed upon the ballot by peti¬ 
tions varying from ten to one thousand, and a candidate for a 
State office must have not less than one thousand nor more than 
two thousand names. Separate ballots of different color were pro¬ 
vided for each party and the names of the candidates were arranged 
under the designated offices in the order of filing, or of the record 
of filing of the nomination papers. The nominations were made 
by a plurality vote and there was no provision for a minimum 
vote. 

Party officers, including County Central Committees are chosen 
by the direct vote, and delegates to State convention are in turn 
chosen by the County Central Committee. The State convention 
adopts the platform of the party. Precinct and State committee¬ 
men are also elected at the primary by direct vote. Any party 
which casts two per cent, of the vote is subject to the law. 

There is no enrollment provision, but voters at the primary must 
declare their party allegiance if required. 


1 - 1-8 


Operation and Results of the Primary Law in Illinois. 

The Committee is under obligations to Professor Charles E. 
Merriam, of Chicago University, for great assistance in obtaining 
data and general information as to the working of the Primary 
Law in Illinois. Professor Merriam also assisted largely in 
obtaining the witnesses who were good enough to appear before the 
Committee. He will be recalled as the author of the book known 
as “ Primary Elections.” lie is a man thirty-five years of age, 
who has been for nine years in the city of Chicago, was formerly 
a resident of the State of Iowa, and at one time a resident of the 
State of Hew York. He is teacher of political science in the 
University of Chicago. He became interested in politics in seek¬ 
ing the office of alderman of the city under the direct primary, 
and is now the alderman from the Seventh ward. Professor Mer¬ 
riam, while admitting many of the unfortunate developments of 
a direct nomination law is nevertheless an enthusiastic advocate 
of the law, both for local and municipal purposes and as a State¬ 
wide proposition. 

Cook county had a legalized caucus system for a number of 
years and the practice in that was for the leaders of the organiza¬ 
tion to make a slate, which was submitted to and ratified by the 
convention. This practice is still continued under the Primary 
Law, and in most cases the slate nominations have been ratified 
by the party voters, though there have been some exceptions and 
some close contests. The remarks of Professor Merriam were 
largely along academic lines for the reason that Illinois has had 
but one real trial of a State-wide primary and results can hardly 
be expected from so short a trial. 

He thought that it had the effect, which can also be obtained 
under the old system, of putting the party organization in the 
hands of the voters. He referred to the practice in Hew York 
in some cities like Rochester where the committeemen are elected 
at the primary, and commended it. 

In congested districts, it is difficult for the mass of voters to 
discriminate except as to the principal offices upon the ticket. 
The ticket is very long, similar to the ticket in Hew York. Only 
a short time ago there were sixty-seven different offices to be filled 
and four or five candidates for each office, that is over 300 names 




149 


on the ballot. . These were not presidential electors; they were can¬ 
didates for various offices from State down to local judges. This 
was not a primary ticket, hut an election ticket. The State pri¬ 
mary is not held at the time of the city primary. In the city 
primary the ballot contains about forty offices and from one to six 
candidates for each of these offices. One primary ballot furnished 
the Committee contained 192 names. 

In regard to the method of campaigning and advertising, Profes¬ 
sor Merriam thought that it was after all educative, although there 
is friction, falsehood and suppression of the truth, but out of it 
all you ought to get somewhere near the truth. ITe would not 
commend, of course, the use of misleading and exaggerated state¬ 
ments in advertising candidates, thought that a limitation of the 
expenses and the publication of the personal notices of the candi¬ 
date somewhat after the Oregon method might be desirable. There 
is no corrupt practices act in Illinois and no limitations upon 
methods or objects of campaign expenditures. 

In regard to city politics, the professor suggested that it should 
be optional with the locality as to whether they should hold direct 
primaries or have nominations by petition, as the whole matter of 
city parties is in obeyance; nobody knows what will be adopted. 
He would like to see the experiment or direct primaries tried out 
in Chicago, but would not apply to the judicial or school officers 
whom he would rather see nominated by petition. 

He thought it was a bad feature of the Illinois law that per¬ 
mitted the participation of members of one party in making the 
nominations of another, and if it could be prevented, it ought to 
be done. He favored a small number of signatures upon nomina¬ 
tion petitions, so as not to make it too difficult for independent 
candidates to obtain the necessary number in order to get upon 
the ticket. 

In regard to the order of printing names upon the primary 
ticket, Professor Merriam thought that their law, which requires 
them to be put on in the order of filing was the worst possible 
method that could be devised, that the scientific method would be 
to put them on in alphabetical order and then rotate them as 
required in many States. In this connection a brief reference to 
the evidence of other witnesses will be profitable. The practice 


150 


in Chicago was for the Executive Committees of the Republican 
and Democratic organizations to make up their “ slate ” of nomi¬ 
nations, procure the petitions to be executed, and place them all 
in the hands of a representative of each party. These men and 
others who were independent candidates for nominations took posi¬ 
tions in the line at the place of filing from twelve hours to three 
days before the hour for receiving such petitions. With one to two 
e'xceptions the organization representatives succeeded in getting 
the first positions and in getting their candidates first on the ticket. 
In the instances in which an independent candidate succeeded, 
such independents who obtained first place upon the ticket, were 
nominated. Without exception, every witness, whether friend or 
foe of the direct nomination system in Chicago, maintained that 
the first place for minor offices, where there were a number of can¬ 
didates, was almost certain to bring success to the lucky holder. 

When asked for his views concerning that part of the proposed 
Hinman-Green bill, which provides for the selection by a party 
committee elected at the primary, of candidates, who should be 
given preferential positions upon the primary ticket, Professor 
Merriam expressed himself as strongly opposed to this idea. lie 
said it would give the party organization a very decided advantage 
and a big long handicap in the race; that it would materially 
assist in maintaining the people who are in power, and might make 
it very difficult for anybody to overthrow them. 

Mr. G. Ered Rush, a lawyer and Republican in politics, pre¬ 
sented to the Committee, an address generally commending the 
Direct Primary Law of Illinois upon principle; he claimed it was 
“ good for the party and for the people and a clearing house for 
candidates.” 

It is quite impossible for the mass of voters to select intelligently 
candidates for minor offices, in large territories and in theory the 
convention chooses better candidates. The candidates at the head 
of the ticket always receive many more votes than those further 
down the line. 

Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, which declared 
the Illinois law unconstitutional, it seems that the court took the 
position that in reality the primary is an “ election ” and that there 
was no proper provision made for minority representation, which 


151 


is required under their constitution. That part of the decision, 
which is of interest to us has reference to the registration require¬ 
ment, the court holding in substance, that it was unfair and im¬ 
proper to require a voter to register so long before the primary, 
and that it adds another qualification to entitle one to become a 
voter, which is not required by the Constitution. 

Mr. Rush maintained that notwithstanding the fact that the 
organization selects ninety per cent, or more of the party candi¬ 
dates, it made its selection more carefully than under the conven¬ 
tion system. 

Mr. George C. Sikes, not being able to be present in person, sent 
a written communication to the Committee, which is printed in 
the record. 

Mr. Sikes took the position that if the State is bound to recog¬ 
nize parties, he would prefer a direct system of nominations 
rather than a representative system. He went, however, to the 
other extreme and took the position, which is held by a consid¬ 
erable number of intelligent people, that the State in this country 
has taken altogether too much control of political parties and ha^ 
gone altogether too far in according them recognition. This he 
called Objectionable paternalism.” He believed that “the State 
should merely safeguard the elections and should make pro¬ 
visions for a simple form of ballot and undertake to exercise no 
control whatever ever the organizations which groups of people 
may form for the purpose of giving effect to their political views.” 
The party has been given a legal status and a position of advan¬ 
tage, and upon this theory “The State must logically go further 
and assume still larger jurisdiction over party organizations, or 
retrace its steps completely.” 

Mr. Sikes preferred that the State should retrace the steps and 
cease to give any legal recognition whatever to party organiza¬ 
tions. 

Mr. George A. Cole, a commercial printer and at one time 
president of the Legislative Voters’ League, expressed himself as 
generally in favor of a direct primary law. He made the charge 
that the Legislature knew that the last act passed by them was 
unconstitutional and passed the law for the purpose of keeping 
the control of the Legislature instead of passing a proper bill. 


152 


Illinois has no legislative districts, but has fifty-one senatorial dis¬ 
tricts, from which one senator and three members of Assembly are 
elected. There is a method of cumulative voting by which a per¬ 
son can cast three votes for one candidate for the Assembly or 
one and a half votes for each of two candidates or one vote for 
the three candidates. The primary law neglected to make proper 
provision for this condition. Outside of this defect, Mr. Cole 
thought the law was a good law and worked well. 

He thought that a voter should be permitted to decide at the 
primary which party he wants to vote with if he only votes one; 
that there should be no restriction and yet he said that he be¬ 
lieved in party nominations, but how it could be worked out in 
fact so as to permit the voter to exercise his choice at the time 
of the primary the witness was unable to say. 

He maintained that a man has a right to change his party from 
day to day and has a right to change his mind as frequently as he 
sees fit; that if there was a law prohibiting voters from choosing 
any ticket indiscriminately at the time of the primary, they 
would violate it, that they did it illegally wherever the law at¬ 
tempted to prevent it, and under such circumstances he would “ let 
the daylight in ” and let every voter decide what ticket he wants 
to vote at the time of the primary, substantially as is done in 
Wisconsin. 

Mr. Edward E. Dunne, mayor of Chicago from 1905 to 1901, 
commended the law and regretted the fact that it had been de¬ 
clared unconstitutional. He also advocated the passage of a 
new law, which would avoid the mistakes of the former law. The 
main advantage of the law, in the judgment of Mayor Dunne, was 
that it forced political parties to look more carefully into the 
personnel of candidates that they select for public office. 

While he thought that prior to the passage of the law, it was 
the aim of party organizations to select men of character, but 
men who would be docile to party organizations, the mayor stated 
that he had heard objections made by men who had sought office 
under its provisions to the effect that it is expensive; that it entails 
upon the candidates for office, who have not the patronage of the 
organization an expense that was unknown to the old law. Mr. 
Dunne thought that this was true, because candidates were com- 


pelled to exploit their advantages to some extent, but that the 
money now expended was in the open and not in secret, as under 
the convention system. More interest, in the opinion of the 
mayor, was taken by the electorate under the Direct Primary 
Law than under the former practice, but the platform and decla¬ 
ration of principles should be left to conventions. It is also true 
that the Direct Primary Law gave greater power to the press. 

Mr. Dunne also recognized the advantage of position at the 
head of the ticket and said that he could not understand why it 
was so, but it was the fact, that if a man gets his name at the 
head of a primary ballot, in nine cases out of ten he is success¬ 
ful ; if he is down near the end of the ticket, no matter what his 
qualifications are, generally he is unfortunate. He also advo¬ 
cated the rotating system as being as fair as any method by 
which this difficulty could be overcome, “ but,” said he, “ I hold 
that the voter ought to select meji on account of their personality 
rather than on account of the place they hold on the ticket.” 
( 2187 .) 

The mayor recalled one instance in. which the Republican 
organization slate Avas broken, but in nineteen cases out of twenty 
the organization had succeeded in putting their men in nomina¬ 
tion, so that the result, so far as the candidates are concerned, 
was not materially different from what they probably would 
have been under the old system. 

Upon the subject of party enrollment, the mayor said that 
there were a good many men in the community like the butcher, 
grocer or haberdasher, \\dio were dealing Ayith their neighbors, 
Avho would be willing to go to the primary and vote a secret 
ballot, but did not wish to declare their party affiliations in the 
open; such men, however, ought not to control party nomina¬ 
tions. 

To avoid the evils of a small plurality nomination, the mayor 
was inclined to favor the “ second choice ” propositions. 

It will be remembered that Mr. Dunne was elected mayor of 
Chicago as a Democrat upon the platform advocating municipal 
ownership of street railroads. To the committee, he expressed 
his strong believe in the initiative, referendum and recall. 

Mr. John P. McGoorty, a laAvyer of prominence and at one 


154 


time a Democratic member of the State Legislature, referring to 
the primary laws enacted in Illinois, characterized the law of 
1905 and the law of 190G as belonging to the “ double-barreled 
system,” that is, retaining a delegate and convention plan, both 
of which were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 

The law of 1908 was the first Direct Primary Law in Illinois, 
but it was not entirely an innovation in the State, as the Craw¬ 
ford county system of Pennsylvania had been working as a sort 
of voluntary primary system in a number of the rural counties 
in Illinois. 

Under ideal conditions, the witness expressed the belief that 
the convention plan of nominating is the ideal one for reasons 
that are obvious, but that the Direct Primary Law came as a 
protest against the influences which have controlled nominations 
through delegate conventions. It was his observation that while 
the people generally were disappointed in some of the workings 
of the primary law, yet on the whole they regarded it as a dis¬ 
tinct advance over the old system. 

The most general dissatisfaction arose from the fact that the 
voter had to declare his party affiliations. Mr. McGoorty stated 
that he had concluded from his examination of the operation of 
various systems in the different States, that the Wisconsin plan 
was preferable. There were not only a-great many business men, 
but many employees in manufacturing centers who were unwilling 
to enroll for fear it might injure their business, or their standing 
with their employers. 

Plurality nominations are not ideal and if the plan proposed 
by Senator LaFollette of Wisconsin, the so-called Marion plan, 
the process of elimination can be worked out so that in the last 
analysis a majority of the electors have succeeded in nominating 
a certain candiate, the witness believed that the last and greatest 
objection to the primary would be removed. 

The direct primary works more satisfactorily in the smaller 
political divisions than in large centers of population like Chi¬ 
cago, with various foreign populations, many of whom do not 
read the English papers and do not or cannot closely follow pub¬ 
lic affairs; it is also true that the benefit of the direct primary is 
not as apparent in more sparsely settled communities. 


155 


The organization which controls the convention has generally 
succeeded, hut the primary is a check upon it. 

He advised that the primary day should also be the first day 
of registration, which would induce a larger number of voters to 
attend. 

Some witnesses were examined by the committee, who disagreed 
radically with the views expressed by the witnesses whose names 
have been mentioned, so far as their advocacy of a direct nom¬ 
inations law for the State of Illinois is concerned. These wit¬ 
nesses were inclined to view the situation in the State and in the 
city of Chicago as it is actually found rather than to imagine ideal 
conditions, in which the voters were of substantially equal intelli¬ 
gence, equally patriotic, and were generally possessed of a correct 
knowledge of character and ability of the men who might offer 
themselves as candidates for the public service. 

Mr. W. S. Struckmann, assistant county attorney, asserted 
that in the direct primary the voters exercise their choice as to 
candidates only in a very limited sense, that is, as between the 
men who have nominated themselves, who may be either incapable 
or unworthy, or both. He contended, however, for a legalized 
primary, for the election of delegates to conventions, who would 
be held to strict accountability for their conduct at such con¬ 
ventions. 

The party organizations had in nearly every instance, under 
their direct primary, succeeded in carrying through the u slate ” 
previously made up by the executive committee of each party. 

During the last pre-primary campaign no attention was paid 
to any part of the ticket except to the governor and United States 
senator, and the contest between the two candidates for governor, 
Mr. Yates and Mr. Deneen, was very bitter and this resulted in 
widening the factional breach in the Republican party. 

Mr. Deneen carried the primary by about 21,000 votes, but at 
the election which followed the Taft electors carried the State by 
about 195,000 votes, while Mr. Deneen was elected governor by 
only 23,000 votes, showing that approximately 172,000 Repub¬ 
licans did not vote for the Republican candidate for governor; if 
it had not been presidential year a Democratic governor would 
undoubtedly have been elected. 


156 


Mr. Frank D. Ayer, a lawyer, Republican in politics, and for¬ 
mer city attorney, and now the attorney for the board of election 
commissioners of the city, characterized the direct primary as 
“ a game of chance,” and said that in large or congested com¬ 
munities you might as well throw a handful of pennies to a mob 
in the street and expect the best man to get the most as to expect 
them, if you should throw them a bundle of candidates, to select 
the best man; there is no greater likelihood that the mass of 
voters who are given a primary ballot, such as the Illinois Primary 
Law legalized, will select worthy and fit candidates for other 
offices than the head of the ticket. While the voters ordinarily 
will express an intelligent choice as between the rival candidates 
for a great office like governor, it is impossible for them to do so, 
and in fact they do not do so, as to the balance of the ticket. Lie 
also contended that the mass of voters did not take the interest in 
the primary which was expected, that less than 50 per cent, at¬ 
tended; there were too many elections and the expense to the 
public was too great. 

While the special object of the law was to prevent the organiza¬ 
tion from dictating the candidates, it had proven itself 99 per 
cent, a failure in that respect, as all organization candidates had 
been nominated except in one or two instances where the organiza¬ 
tion had failed to get its candidates at the head of the ticket. 

lion. Edward I). Shurtleff of Marion, Illinois, who is prac¬ 
ticing law in the city of Chicago, who is the present speaker of 
the Illinois House of Representatives and has held the same 
position for the last three biennial sessions, appeared before the 
committee. He stated that the direct primary question had been 
agitated for six years of his experience and several bills had been 
passed. He has been opposed to the direct primary principle 
pure and simple, but at the special session of 1906 advocated a 
convention bill, which provided also that there should be an 
official ballot upon which the voters voted directly for their choice 
of candidates for the purpose of instructing the delegates; it 
proved a failure, however, and was held unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court; it did not give satisfaction at all. 

Mr. Shurtleff said that he was nominated under the law of 
1908 and that if he looked at the matter from a personal stand- 


point purely and selfishly, it would be satisfactory to him. The 
nominations that have been made under that law in the State of 
Illinois, so far as he knew, have been satisfactory, but the working 
of the law from a party standpoint has been unsatisfactory, not 
on account of the results in the primary, hut as a matter of prin¬ 
ciple. It leads to the expenditure of large sums of money; it 
puts upon the voter the duty of making a selection as between a 
large number of candidates, whom 95 per cent, of the voters do 
not know personally, and have no means of learning their charac¬ 
ter or ability, below the candidates for governor and United 
States senator. 

Voters generally regard the law as an election law and not a 
primary law, especially in those counties where one party or the 
other is largely dominant. Under these circumstances they 
object to being asked to state their politics publicly. The opera¬ 
tion of the law in a city like Chicago with fifty to one hundred 
offices to be filled cannot possibly result in any intelligent choice 
of candidates. The voter is personally besieged by the candidates 
running for all of these offices and he is pulled and hauled in 
many instances where he knows none of them, has not any inter¬ 
est in any of them and could not by any possibility become well 
enough acquainted with any large per cent of them so as to form 
any judgment as to whether he should prefer one or the other; 
voters are simply bewildered by numerous personalities and pub¬ 
lications and methods that are used to secure the support of the 
individual voter. 

The candidates who seek nominations upon party tickets do 
not advocate the principles of their party, but their individual 
tenets or, views, which may be directly opposed by others, who 
are seeking the nomination upon the same ticket. In fact, it 
makes these men, who get the plurality, the party itself He is 
not bound by any set of principles that may he passed at a con¬ 
vention. He cannot establish a party principle by a direct vote 
unless we take up the referendum ad infinitum. The only way 
to determine party principles is by the party getting together 
en masse or by representation in delegate conventions and by 
argument and counsel and consideration, a majority agreeing 
on what the party should stand for. That makes the party, and 


158 


the men that establish, enunciate and advocate these principles, 
which a majority of them have determined, constitute in the 
judgment of Mr. Shurtleff a political party. To have the law 
step in and allow some one man, who can control 15 per cent, 
or 20 per cent, of that party by a club, newspaper cajolery, the 
use of money, the use of patronage or in any other way get more 
votes as leader than some other man, to become the party itself, is 
destructive of party organization. That will be the result of a 
direct primary law if followed out during three or four State 
primaries. 

The strongest advocates of the law in the city are newspapers 
that recognize no party whatever and the independent voters. In 
1906 the strongest argument made on the floor of the house, or 
while the Assembly was in committee of the whole, for the law was 
made by one of the most prominent clergymen in the city of Chi¬ 
cago. Theoretically he was right. He said they wanted a law 
by which he could go into a primary and vote for John Jones, a 
Republican, for sheriff, and John Doe, a Democrat, for county 
clerk, and Richard Roe, a Prohibitionist, for county treasurer. 
This was the Rev. Dr. Jenkin Lloyd Jones. Speaker Shurtleff 
said that if the plurality primary law stands, he thought that 
this should be the law, because it is an election law and nothing 
more nor less, and this would do away with the second election 
and be a finality. 

It is claimed that the primary law is an office holder’s law, and 
this is true to quite an extent, for the man, who has been before 
the public and has conducted himself reasonably well, has a large 
advantage over the unknown man. 

Referring again to the interest of the voters at the primary and 
their lack of discrimination, Mr. Shurtleff said that the practice 
generally was for the leaders in particular districts to take sample 
ballots and mark the candidates from the top of the ticket to the 
bottom according as the party leader wanted the precinct or dis¬ 
trict carried; very large numbers of the voters, estimated by Mr. 
Shurtleff at about eighty per cent., went to one leader or the other, 
and had their ballots thus marked, and the voters took them to the 
polls and marked the tickets voted by them accordingly. In this 
way it has been notorious that a very few leaders, fewer than those 


159 


who make up political caucuses or political conventions, get to¬ 
gether and determine who shall be the organization candidates and 
absolutely fix the slates from top to bottom. 

The Independents advocate the law because they think that 
practices of this kind will offend the voters and that the result 
will ultimately be to break down party organization. 

In rural districts the tendency is for a much smaller number of 
voters to attend the primaries than in the cities. The speaker 
lives in a rural district and speaks from experience. Mr. Shurt- 
leff’s observation was that the law worked better in a small com¬ 
munity where the voters knew each other and could know the can¬ 
didates for minor offices better than in a larger or more congested 
district. He also expressed the belief that there were not as many 
voters now that favored the law since the one trial they had had 
of it as they did when they looked at theoretically; from what 
he had heard voters say, they commenced condemning the law 
when they commenced to use it and the number of those condemn¬ 
ing it is increasing very rapidly. 

He based his statement more upon what he had been told by 
other members of the Legislature, who communicated to him the 
•sentiment of their own localities, some of whom had been sup¬ 
porters of the law, but who said that they would oppose it at the 
next session if advocated. He believed that these men were abso¬ 
lutely honest in their statements, and that when they said they 
would not vote for another law of this kind, they did it because 
they felt that their constituencies were opposed to it. 

The Committee was very fortunate in obtaining the attendance 
of Hon. Lewis Rinaker, Judge of the County Court of Cook 
county, who had occupied that position two and a half years. 

Judge Rinaker was a careful observer of the working of the 
four Illinois primary laws in the county, city and judicial districts, 
all of which have been declared unconstitutional. 

The county judge is required to appoint three election com¬ 
missioners, who compose what is known as the Primary Election 
Commission of the city of Chicago. They have the control, man¬ 
agement and conduct of all the elections within the limits of the 

O 

city of Chicago and the town of Cicero, as it is known. 

From the records of the office of the Election Commissioners, 


1G0 


Judge Rinaker produced data showing the cost of the city of work¬ 


ing the several primaries. 

In 1904, each political party held a separate pri¬ 
mary on different days and the total cost for the 

March primaries was. $24,465 84 

The May primaries for both parties cost. 24,465 84 

At that time there was a total of 1256 precincts. 

The cost of the Primary Law for delegate con¬ 
vention. 48,139 69 

The primary held in 1905 in a total of 1259 dis¬ 
tricts cost.. 21,520 87 

The primary held in July of 1906 cost. 48,577 05 

The primary election held August 8, 1908, under 

the Direct Primary Law cost. 59,718 20 


The revised registration of March 19, 1904, was. . . 360,429 

The primary election vote on May 6, 1904, was. . 173,735 

This was divided as follows: 

Republican vote. 100,040 

Democratic vote. 73,695 

At the election of November, which followed the 

total vote cast was. 371,513 


showing that the total primary vote was about 
forty-eight per cent, of the total registration, and 
about forty-six per cent, of the vote cast at the 
election. 

In 1906, the delegate primary was still in effect. 

The revised registration, March 17, 1906, was. 375,251 

The primaries were held on the same day at the 
same time and place under the control of judges 
and clerks of election. At the August primary 


the Republican vote cast was. 74,030 

The Democratic vote was. 51,786 

Socialist vote..... ; ¥ 2,939 


Making a total of. 128,755 






















At the November election following the total vote 

cast was... 301,127 

showing that the primary vote was thirty-four 
per cent, of the total registration of that year aiid 
about forty-two per cent, of the vote cast in No¬ 
vember. 


The revised registration, October 17, 1908, was. . . 411,220 

Total primary vote cast by all parties August, 1908. 217,034 

At the election in November, which followed, the 

total vote cast was. 387,337 


showing that the primary vote in 1908 was about 
fifty-two per cent, of the total registration and 
about fifty-six per cent, of the total vote cast in 
November. 

This large percentage is due to the fierce gubernatorial fight 
and the contest for United States Senator. 

A primary was held for the nomination of judicial 
officers April 13, 1909. The revised registration 


of March 20, 1909, was. ... 406,928 

The primary vote cast was. 75,962 

The vote cast at the election June 7, 1909, was. . . 173,302 


showing that in 1909 the primary vote was about 
eighteen per cent, of the total registration and 
about forty-three per cent, of the vote cast at the 
election. This, of course, refers entirely to the 
city of Chicago and the town of Cicero. 

At the judicial primary there were fourteen judges to be nomi¬ 
nated and upon the Republican ticket there were twenty-four 
candidates, the first fourteen being the organization candidates, 
were nominated, the fourteenth man receiving 25,862 votes* and 
the next man below receiving 7,245 vot-es. 

For circuit judges, the first man Carpenter, got the highest 
vote. Judge Rinaker produced a Republican primary ticket used 
in the last primary upon which were the names of 160 candidates 
for office, and a Democratic primary ballot for the same primary 
election, upon which there were 187 names. 

6 






102 


The judge said that in Chicago there were in the neighborhood 
of 450,000 men above the age of twenty-one years, and that in 
his opinion, no man could know very much about other men, when 
you got beyond 1500 or 2000 at the outside. In a small village 
or small community, it would be different, but with such tickets 
submitted to the average voter, as the ones above referred to, it 
would be physically impossible for any voter to exercise any rea¬ 
sonable degree of intelligent selection or discrimination. 

In the April, 1909, primary, there was to be selected candidates 
of the various parties for one Judge of the Superior Court and 
fourteen Judges of the Supreme Court. It was stripped from 
politics. There was nothing to confuse the voter seemingly and 
it was separated from all other elections, and yet only about eigh¬ 
teen per cent, of the registered vote, or one man out of five, exer¬ 
cised his right; this may be explained by the fact that the voters 
do not know or do not care, and there is no method devised that 
will give him the information to enable him to make an intelligent 
selection. 

An active campaign was made by these candidates for judicial 
honors. Party organizations had their caucuses and there was a 
very heavy expenditure of money. The conduct of a primary 
ordinarily requires the expenditure on the part of a candidate of 
a large sum of money. Judge Rinaker spoke of a common prac¬ 
tice of candidates having their lithographs put up and one can¬ 
didate in 1906 informed him that it cost $1.10 to have each por¬ 
trait put up and when 1500 or 1800 miles of streets are covered, 
the expense is enormous. 

In referring to the gubernatorial contest between Mr. Deneen 
and Mr. Yates, Judge Rinaker stated that there was an equally 
hot fight in 1904 between the same man and Mr. Hoffman under 
the convention law. Governor Deneen was nominated; at the 
election which followed, the Republican candidate carried the 
State by about 300,000 votes and Governor Deneen carried it by 
2000 more votes than the President, while in 1908 after the fac¬ 
tional fight in the primaries, he received 172,000 less votes than 
the presidential candidate. 

One conclusion from this is that the bitterness aroused by the 
convention fight is not carried over into the election to the extent 


163 


that it is where the fight is made in a primary with direct nomina¬ 
tions, although Judge Rinaker thought that some of it might he 
accounted for by the fact that large numbers of Democrats par¬ 
ticipated in the primary, who did not vote for the Republican can¬ 
didate for Governor at the election. 

As to whether the continuance of a State-wide direct nomination 
law would ultimately disintegrate parties, the Judge stated that 
he knew nothing about this personally, but called attention to an 
editorial in the Portland Oregonian of December, 1907, in which 
that paper declared that there would be no longer a Republican 
party because there was no Republican party in the State erf 
Oregon since the passage of their Direct Primary Law. 

So far as the selection of candidates is concerned, Judge Rinaker 
gave it as his opinion that the convention will procure a better 
class of candidates than a direct primary, not because the voter 
cannot be trusted, but because he does not know the candidates 
and has no way to find out. 

Judge Rinaker was eminently fair in his discussion of the entire 
subject and his opportunities for observation of the actual working 
of the direct primary law of Illinois, particularly in a city of 
metropolitan size, could hardly be equalled, because the super¬ 
vision of all these primaries came directly within the jurisdiction 
of his court. 

Observations on the Illinois System. 

The Committee did not have opportunity to make a careful 
examination of the results of the Illinois Primary Election Law 
of 1908 in rural districts, except as it could obtain information 
from the witnesses present, w r ho lived in rural counties. 

That part of the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois which 
treated the Primary Law practically as an Election Law and held 
in substance that the registration provisions, which did not per¬ 
mit the voter to exercise his privileges at the primary, unless he 
had made a party declaration, a long time before the primary, is 
contrary to the constitutional rights of the individual, is worthy 
of consideration and careful study. While all substantially agree 
that if party nominations are to be made by members of political 
parties, a provision of the law, which compels a man, in order to 


164 


exercise this privilege to enroll himself as a member of that party 
a year in advance of the primary should be carefully scrutinized. 

The large number of candidates and the large number of offices 
to be filled in a municipal election in a city like Chicago impressed 
the Committee that it is unreasonable to suppose that any intelli¬ 
gent selection or discrimination between these candidates can be 
made by the average voter, or by any large percentage of the voters, 
intelligent or otherwise, and that the nomination of any particular 
candidate, who does not happen to have a preferential position 
upon the ticket is either a matter of chance or the result of persist¬ 
ent activity, solicitation, advertising, or the use of money by the 
candidate, unless for some reason he is well known to a considerable 
number of voters. 

The operation of the law in Illinois is still in the experimental 
stage, notwithstanding they have had four different primary laws, 
the last one, the Law of 1908 being the only State-wide pure pri¬ 
mary law with direct nominations for substantially all officers. 

While it is undoubtedly true that there were factional differ¬ 
ences in the dominant party before the enactment of the law of 
1908, still be believe from the history of the operation of that 
primary, that the factional breaches have been widened and the 
very great difference between the gubernatorial and presidential 
votes at the election, which followed, is due to a considerable 
extent to this factional bitterness. 

In the nomination of judges of the courts, a very small per¬ 
centage of the voters participated in the primary and the organiza¬ 
tion ticket in every case received the nomination. Such a cam¬ 
paign as was conducted by the candidates for judges at this pri¬ 
mary is, in our opinion, undignified and detracts much from the 
modest self-respect that should clothe every candidate for judicial 
honors. 

Any direct nomination plan, which includes in it the nomina¬ 
tion of judges for our Courts of Record will necessarily eliminate 
or minimize the influence of politics, which influence is making 
itself felt at the present time in our own State to such an extent 
that we believe the standard of efficiency among the judiciary must 
necessarily be raised. 

It is unnecessary to repeat here the unsatisfactory results appear- 


1(35 


ing from the operation of the Illinois law, which are similar to 
those found in other States, svich as the large participation by 
members of one party in the primary of another, the unfortunate 
element of chance because of the position upon the ticket, which 
is attempted to he obviated in other States by the rotating system, 
the power of the press, which derives much financial support 
through the operation of the primary elections, and the ability of 
the party machine to select candidates representing it, and in 
most cases secure their nomination. 

Conditions in the city of Chicago are more nearly like the con¬ 
ditions that may be found in the city of Hew York than in any 
other place, and the Committee endeavored to ascertain actual 
results which would be beneficial in advising legislation that shall 
control the nominating machinery of our metropolis. 

There was some evidence going to show that conditions under 
the old form of caucus and convention were not ideal; that many 
people felt they did not have sufficient part in the selection of can¬ 
didates for office, and the new Primary Law was popular among 
certain people, who felt that there should be a greater opportunity 
for men desirous of getting into public places, who might not be 
identified with any particular political organization. 

Apparently the law has failed to accomplish the last result and 
time and experience with such a law can only determine whether 
after many trials political conditions can be improved under it. 


166 


INDIANA. 

The Law. 

The existing Primary Law of Indiana was approved March 
12, 1907. 

Several counties in the State, including Marion county, in 
which is the city of Indianapolis, have had for a number of years 
some form of direct nominations, and for some years in Indian¬ 
apolis the Republican party made its nominations by this method, 
while the Democratic party used the convention system. 

The law of 1907 provides in substance that political parties 
which cast at least 10 per cent, of the total vote of the last pre¬ 
ceding general election, in counties having a city with a popula¬ 
tion of 36,000 or over, shall nominate candidates for county, city, 
township, judicial and legislative offices in accordance with the 
provisions of this act. The act. is made optional in all other 
counties of the State, the option to he exercised by concurrent 
vote of the precinct committeemen of the respective political 
parties. 

The law also provides for the election of precinct committee¬ 
men at a time prior to the primary day, each party voting at a 
different place. 

The board of primary election commissioners in counties where 
the act is mandatory fix the primary day in biennial elections 
some time between April 1 and July 1; and the city board of 
primary election commissioners fix the time for the city primary. 
In counties where the act is not mandatory the precinct com¬ 
mitteemen fix the date within specified limits. 

It was understood that the act was mandatory in four of the 
counties of the State and the committee was not able to ascertain 
that any of the other counties of the State had elected to come 
in under the law. Any eligible person may become a party candi¬ 
date by filing with the primary election commissioners a written 
notice of such candidacy at least five days before the primary. 
Upon this notice no other signatures than that of the candidate 
are required, but twenty-five or more voters of a party may file 


1C 7 


a petition to have the name of a person placed on the party bal¬ 
lot as a candidate. 

The law is not State wide and there is no special agitation to 
have it made mandatory in other counties of the State, or to 
extend it to State officers. 

A candidate may withdraw by notice in writing within ten 
days of the primary day. The primary elections are conducted 
by the regular election officers and the election precincts and 
voting places are the same as in the election. No personal regis¬ 
tration is required, hut the voter may be challenged as to his 
party affiliations. If not, he is entitled to the ticket he calls for; 
if challenged as to his party affiliations, he must take an oath 
to the effect that at the last election he voted for a majority of 
the candidates of the party whose ballot he asks for and intends 
to vote for the candidates nominated upon this ticket at the com¬ 
ing election. 

The ballots are in the usual form, hut in different colors for 
the several different political parties. The law now requires 
that the names, which are first put on in alphabetical order, shall 
be alternated so that as nearly as possible an equal number of 
ballots shall he printed with each candidate’s name at the head of 
the group. 

The candidate receiving the highest number of votes is the 
party nominee. There is no corrupt practices act requiring can¬ 
didates to file a statement of expenses incurred as candidates 
before the primary, but certain acts, such as bribing voters, etc., 
are declared illegal. 

Operation and Results of the Primary Law of Indiana. 

The committee was able to study political conditions only in 
the city of Indianapolis. The witnesses who appeared before 
the committee quite uniformly disapproved of the Primary Law 
of 1901 and of such modifications of the law and practices which 
had grown up under party rules relating to the conduct of party 
primaries as were in vogue prior to the adoption of the law of 
1907. 

A county primary for the nomination of county, judicial and 
legislative offices was held in 1908 and a city primary was held 


1G8 


in 1909 shortly before the visit of the committee. The latter 
attracted wide attention and was commented upon to a consider¬ 
able extent by the press outside of Indiana, and the claim was 
generally made that the mayoralty candidates of both party 
organizations were defeated; that the people of Indianapolis had 
been much aroused and through the medium of the primary were 
able to assert their rights and overthrow the political machines, 
greatly to the detriment of political conditions in that city. 

In order to ascertain the actual condition of affairs and the 
real issues at stake, the inquiries of the committee were almost 
entirely confined to the operation of the law at the last municipal 
primary. 

Twenty-one witnesses appeared voluntarily and upon the re¬ 
quest of the committee and gave their views and their personal 
experiences at considerable length. These men were newspaper 
editors and writers, bankers, lawyers, men holding prominent 
official and political positions and men who formerly held high 
positions in the administration of the city. 

Seven of these witnesses in a general way commended the 
principle of the law, but nearly all of them advocated numerous 
amendments providing for a limitation upon the expenditure of 
money, a proper registration, or some method that would prevent 
cross-voting between the parties, and some of them advocated 
quite strongly the holding of the primary upon the first day of 
registration, so as to secure a larger attendance and more general 
participation at the primary. Two or three only of these wit¬ 
nesses favored a State-wide primary and most of them expressed 
the opinion that a direct nomination system was more feasible 
and would work better in a smaller territory than in a large or 
thickly populated one. 

There was a wide difference of opinion among the witnesses 
upon both sides of the question as to whether the party organiza¬ 
tions were defeated in the last municipal primary, the chairman 
of the Democratic committee admitting that the Democratic 
organization was defeated, but claiming that he endeavored long 
before the primary to induce their candidates to withdraw. Some 
of those who did not favor Mr. Shank, the successful Republican 
candidate, made the positive assertion that while the Kepublican 


organization pretended to be supporting one of the other candi¬ 
dates for mayor, almost the entire organization of office holders 
supported Mr. Shank by their votes and by their influence. Cer¬ 
tain it is, reasoning from the number of votes cast for the suc¬ 
cessful Republican candidate, that the Republican organization, 
so called, could not have been loyal to his adversary. 

The following witnesses in a general way commended the direct 
nomination principle of the Indiana law: 

Charles B. Stilz, real estate and insurance, Republican nom¬ 
inee for councilman in the Fifth district. 

Jacob Pratt Dunn, newspaper writer, president of the State 
library commission. 

Thomas A. Dailey, lawyer, Republican member of Assembly 
which enacted the primary bill. 

Henry W. Klausmann, civil engineer and county surveyor, 
also chairman of the Republican city central committee. 

William A. Pickens, Democrat, a lawyer, who was once a can¬ 
didate for representative, but has never held office. 

M. L. Clawson, a progressive Republican, who never held any 
office, but was once a candidate under the convention system. 

Henry Seyfried, a lawyer and Democratic precinct committee¬ 
man. 

These gentleman quite generally condemned the caucus and 
conventions held for many years by both political parties, not 
under any statutory control, having no definite time or place 
fixed by statute and not required to be open for any certain length 
of time, and generally dominated by a certain few, who were al¬ 
ways in evidence, and for selfish purposes largely sought to con¬ 
trol and did dictate and control the nominations. Sometimes 
the rooms selected for holding the caucuses were packed in ad¬ 
vance of the hour, so that citizens who might desire to participate 
could not enter. It was also claimed that the attendance was 
very small compared with the voting population, and that only 
members of the organization or those favored by the so-called 
organizations had any show of securing a nomination. 

From these conditions the legalized primary was welcomed as 
a distinct relief, because of the fact that they were held by regu¬ 
larly constituted election officers, were conducted in a decently 


and orderly manner and a larger number of the voters could and 
did particpate and voted for the men whose names appeared upon 
the primary ticket. 

The necessity, however, for a long continued campaign before 
the primary, most of the witnesses admitted, operated to deter 
desirable candidates, who might be unwilling to expend the 
money necessary, if they had it, or who might not be in a financial 
condition which would permit them to do it. 

Some of these witnesses declared unreservedly for the initia¬ 
tive, the referendum and the recall, and also expressed the hope 
that all partisan politics should ultimately be disregarded in 
municipal affairs and that there should be but one election, sub¬ 
stantially after the Des Moines system. 

Substantially all agreed that it was difficult to secure desirable 
candidates for mayor, but some attributed it to the smallness of 
the salary, $4,000 per annum. 

The population of the city is about 240,000; the voting popu¬ 
lation of the city is about 40,000, and the normal Republican 
majority is about 5,000; the vote cast at the last municipal pri¬ 
mary was approximately 50 per cent, of the voting population. 

Some of these witnesses disapproved of the idea of a party 
enrollment and advised that candidates for mayor should be re¬ 
quired to get a large number of signatures upon their petition 
before they could have a place upon the ticket. Enrollment would 
prevent participation of independent Republicans and would pre¬ 
vent men changing their party politics in municipal affairs at the 
time they desired to exercise the franchise in the primary. 

Objections were also made to the plurality system of nom¬ 
inating, and~many different ideas were advanced to correct these. 

In order to ascertain what actually happened in this respect 
at the last municipal primary, the committee obtained sample 
copies of the Democratic and Republican primary tickets, which 
are returned with this report, and upon these tickets we have 
placed the figures obtained from the election commissioners, show¬ 
ing the vote received by each candidate. 

Upon the Democratic ticket it will be observed that the total 
vote cast for the three candidates for mayor was 14,767. For 


171 


the six candidates for councilman of the Sixth district, 12,610, 
or 2,151 less votes than were cast for mayor. 

An examination of the results upon this ticket will show that 
the four candidates for city clerk, the six candidates for city 
judge received from 700 to 1,000 less votes than the candidates 
for mayor, and as you go down the ticket the number of votes 
for councilmen is considerably less. 

It should be explained that the councilmen are nominated 
from the district of their residence, hut are voted for at large. 

The same results appear from an examination of the Repub- 
lican primary ballot. The two candidates for mayor had 18,278, 
while the four candidates for councilmen in the Sixth district 
received 13,920, a difference of 4,358 votes. 

The candidates for city clerk and city judge received, respect¬ 
ively, 15,573 and 15,948, and the councilmen for the several 
districts a smaller number as you pass toward the end of the 
ticket. 

Referring again to the Democratic ticket, it appears that there 
were four candidates for city clerk and the successful one received 
37 per cent, of the vote. 

There were six candidates for city judge and the successful one 
received 26 per cent, of the vote. 

The successful candidate for councilman in the First and Sec¬ 
ond districts received substantially 37 per cent, of the vote. 

In the Fourth district there were eight candidates; the success¬ 
ful candidate received 3,541 votes, his competitors received 
9,059 votes, showing that the successful candidate received 28 
per cent, of the vote. 

In the Fifth district there were eight candidates and the suc¬ 
cessful candidate received a fraction over 25 per cent, of the vote, 
his vote being 3,280 to 9,577 for his opponents. 

In the Sixth district there were six candidates and the success¬ 
ful candidate received 3iy 2 per cent, of the vote, having 3,996 
to 8,620 for his opponents. 

Upon the Republican ticket there were seven candidates for 
councilman in the third district, and the successful man received 
37 per cent, of the vote. 

In the Second district the successful candidate received 34 per 
cent. 


In only one office on the Republican ticket where there was 
more than one candidate and in no office on the Democratic ticket, 
except that of mayor, did any candidate receive a majority of the 
votes. 

The following witnesses expressed their disappointment with 
the operation and results of the Primary Law in the city of 
Indianapolis. Some of them had favored its passage; one or two 
were members of the Legislature and voted for it there and had 
changed their views with reference to it, and others condemned 
the whole scheme of direct nominations: 

Adolph Schmnck, chief city editor of the Indianapolis News, 
who usually takes charge of the legislative news, having been 
connected with that paper for twenty years, an independent 
Republican. 

Henry C. Price, who has resided in Indianapolis for two years 
and before that lived in New York city, a Republican in politics, 
a lawyer, having no official position. 

Louis Howland, an editorial writer on the Indianapolis News. 

John W. Holtzman, a lawyer, Democrat in politics, formerly 
mayor of Indianapolis. 

Leopold G. Rothschild, surveyor of the customs of the port, 
formerly assistant attorney-general of the State. 

Gaylord Hawkins, a lawyer, who has never held an elective 
office or been a candidate for one, but was deputy city attorney 
and deputy prosecuting attorney. 

William A. Ketcham, a Republican, formerly attorney-general 
of the State for two terms. 

William F. Moore, chairman of the Democratic State com¬ 
mittee. 

Henry W. Bennett, president of the Indianapolis Stove Com¬ 
pany, also president of an insurance company, formerly postmas¬ 
ter of Indianapolis, treasurer of the State Republican committee. 

Omer U. Newman, a lawyer, Republican in politics, who has 
never held any political position and does not desire to. He has, 
however, been actively interested in politics for the past fifteen 
years. 

Albert W. Wishard, a lawyer, who has acted as one of the 
inspectors of election in his precinct for a number of years. Mr. 
Wishard stated, among other things, that in his precinct the vote 




173 

is about half colored and half white; that 90 per cent, of the 
colored vote was cast and that only about 10 per cent, of the prop¬ 
erty holders voted at the primary. 

Ernest Bross, the editor of the Indianapolis Star, and for five 
years a resident of Portland, Oregon, connected with the Portland 
Oregonian. 

Prank D. Stahlnecker, president of the Capital National Bank 
of Indianapolis. 

The facts presented by these gentlemen may be partially sum¬ 
marized : 

The expense to candidates is so great and the organized fight 
necessary for a successful campaign requires so much personal 
activity and strain that very few self-respecting competent busi¬ 
ness men will enter such a contest. Many instances were cited 
by the witnesses of committees waiting upon men, who might be 
suggested as competent and desirable and without success because 
of their unwillingness to become candidates under the direct pri¬ 
mary system. 

General Ketchum, a man sixty-two years of age, stated that he 
would no sooner think of entering a contest for an office under 
this system than he would of taking passage with the Wright 
brothers in one of their aerial flights. 

It was generally conceded that the candidates for mayor upon 
both Republican and Democratic tickets were not high class men 
from an individual and business point of view and did not com¬ 
mand the hearty support of the community; other candidates were 
sought, but refused to enter the race, unless the men, who had 
announced themselves, would withdraw. 

The primary was held at a time when a very large number of 
business men and men of the wealthier classes were away from the 
city upon vacations and only a very small percentage of what is 
known as the North Side were at the primaries. 

There is almost universal disappointment at the result. 

So far as councilmen is concerned, it was generally agreed that 
from the material presented, the best men were selected. It, how¬ 
ever, appeared that the newspapers and the Anti-saloon League, 
an independent organization having no party affiliations, with one 
exception, agreed upon the ticket to be nominated and advised 


174 


voters throughout the city to make the selection, which they ulti¬ 
mately did. 

One of the unsuccessful candidates for mayor spent upwards 
of $8000 in the primary campaign and many of the councilmen 
spent more than their salaries. 

Newspaper advertising was generally indulged in. 

The prospect of two strenuous campaigns also deters many men 
from seeking office through this method. 

The machine organizations, directly or indirectly, control the 
nominations as much under the direct primary as formerly under 
the convention system. 

The operation of the primary destroys party alignments; this 
may not be objectionable in municipal politics, but the trouble 
is it extends to State and national politics. 

Mr. Bross, formerly of Portland, Oregon, stated that the direct 
primary law of Oregon had played havoc with party organizations 
in Oregon. It was his opinion that, the advocates of direct nomi¬ 
nation laws deliberately intended this result. 

One of the witnesses stated that the most popular cry of the day 
was “ ring rule,’ 7 “ gang rule,” and other similar expressions, 
which were made through the public press for the purpose of dis¬ 
rupting party organization. 

Observations on the Indiana System. 

The Primary Election Law, mandatory in Indianapolis, and 
three or four other counties of the State of Indiana, lacks many 
desirable features and among them, registration and party enroll¬ 
ment ; and some method of preventing a multiplicity of candidates 
by a numerously signed petition or payment of a filing fee. 

The only requirement now is that a candidate shall be eligible 
and shall file a notice of the fact that he is a candidate, or have 
his name presented by twenty-five petitioners. 

The fact that the law permits a person to become a candidate 
within five days of the primary, sometimes brings out “ eleventh 
hour ” candidates, who render ineffectual the labors of other can- 
dates who have been making their canvas for months before the 
primary. 



175 


While Indianapolis has had a form of direct nominations under 
party rule and statute for some years prior to the law of 1907, 
and notwithstanding the fact that several counties in the State 
have of their own initiative been nominating their county officers 
by this method, there is no pronounced agitation for the extension 
of the system by statute to make it mandatory in other counties, 
or to make it State-wide; the parties do not advocate it in their 
platforms, nor does the Executive recommend it. Democrats 
claimed in their evidence before the Committee that it would have 
been impossible to have nominated the present excellent Chief 
Executive of the State of Indiana, Governor Marshall, under the 
direct nomination system. 

The same tendency toward the extravagant use of money in 
the primaries was apparent in Indianapolis that has been found 
elsewhere, and the indications and intimations were quite clearly 
made that the money was not all used for legitimate purposes. 

The unsatisfactory results from the pluarlity system of nomi¬ 
nations is also quite as apparent here as elsewhere, comparatively 
few candidates receiving as high as forty per cent, of the vote 
where more than two were in the field, and in many of the cases, 
the successful aspirant received less than thirty per cent. 

If the statements of the witnesses to the effect that they have 
conversed generally with their friends and neighbors upon the 
subject of primary elections be true, it must be concluded that the 
law h^s disappointed its friends and is not a popular or satisfac¬ 
tory method of selecting desirable candidates for public office, par¬ 
ticularly for the management of municipal affairs. 


MICHIGAN. 


The Law. 

The State of Michigan passed a revised Primary Election Law 
at the regular session of the Legislature in 1909, but no primary 
had been held under this law at the time of the hearing of our 
Committee in the city of Detroit, August 27, 1909. 

The law of 1907 was passed at an extra session and was made 
mandatory for local officers, — the option to be determined by 
popular vote in the city, county or district. County committee¬ 
men were chosen at the primary. Candidates obtained places upon 
the primary ballot on filing petitions signed by not less than two 
nor more than four per cent, of the party vote within the county, 
district or State, as the case might be. 

Separate party ballots of different colors were used at the joint 
primary conducted by the regular election officers and provision 
was made for rotating the names. A declaration of party was 
required and a party enrollment before the primary, but provision 
was also made for an enrollment of new voters or change of party 
affiliation at the time of the primary. 

The nominees for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor must poll 
forty per cent, of the vote, and if no nomination was made, the 
State convention which nominated all other State officers, includ¬ 
ing Justices of the Supreme Court, would make the nomination 
for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. As above stated, the law 
of 1907 was repealed at the session of 1909, and a new Primary 
Election Law enacted which fixes the first Tuesday after the first 
Monday of September as primary day, and requires party enroll¬ 
ment on the first Monday of April preceding, but also provided 
that an enrollment could be made on primary day of new voters 
or for those who were sick or unavoidably absent from the district 
on enrollment day. A voter could change his party enrollment 
only on enrollment day. 

The 1907 law, so far as the State is concerned, applies only to 
the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and United States Senator; 
it is mandatory in cities of more than 70,000, and optional in 
other cities and counties. In counties where county officers are 


m 


nominated by direct vote, and members of Congress and State 
Senators represent but a single county, they are also included in 
the direct nomination plan. 

Delegates to a county convention to elect delegates to the State 
convention are elected at the primaries and the same provisions 
for the nomination of other State officers, the use of separate 
primary ballots of different colors and the alternating of names 
are continued in the law of 1909. 

A voter cannot sign more than one nomination paper and the 
provision requiring that the candidates for Governor and Lieuten¬ 
ant-Governor shall have forty per cent, of the vote is eliminated 
from the law of 1909. 

There is also provision that a person can only be nominated by 
one party and if nominated by both, he must within five days 
elect upon which party ticket he will have his name printed. 

There is no corrupt practices act requiring the filing of a state¬ 
ment of expenses incurred at the primary elections, but because 
of the campaign methods, particularly in the line of advertising- 
through newspapers, posters, etc., the law of 1909 contains some 
very peculiar provisions, which all the lawyer witnesses, who testi¬ 
fied, said were regarded simply as a joke. 

Among other provisions is one known as the Anti-Treating Law. 
This not only prevents the candidate from treating any person to 
any kind of liquor after he has filed his petition and until after 
the polls are closed on primary day, but also prevents any one on 
his behalf from doing similar acts; “ it being the intent of this 
section to prohibit the prevailing custom of treating by candidates 
for nomination for public office or by any other person on behalf 
of such candidates.” 

The candidate is prohibited from posting “ upon or in a build¬ 
ing, tree, post, fence, billboard, telegraph or telephone poll, vehicle 
or other object, any campaign card, banner, handbill, poster, litho¬ 
graph, halftone engraving, photograph, or other likeness of himself, 
or other advertising matter used or intended for the purpose of 
advertising or advancing his candidacy for office.” 

He cannot print or circulate campaign cards, etc., larger than 
two and a quarter inches in width by four inches in length, except 
postal cards and letters, and if these cards contain his picture, it 


17b 


must not be larger than one and a half inches in width by two 
inches in height, excepting advertisements in newspapers, and if 
published there, the picture of such candidate cannot be larger 
than one and a half inches in width by two inches in height. It 
also attempts to control the size of type and prohibits the news¬ 
paper from charging a candidate anything more than the regular 
rates. This is intended to cure what has become a universal prac¬ 
tice among candidates for nomination at the primary. 

Wayne county, which includes the city of Detroit, has had for 
some years a direct nomination law for county and State officers, 
and the election of party committees. The act of 1905 repealed 
the act of 1903, and provided for primary elections in March for 
the April election, and for three days in September in presidential 
years and two days in other years. 

These primary elections were conducted substantially the same 
as the primaries since adopted, except that the counting of the 
vote was under the supervision of a Board of Canvassers. 

Operation and Results of the Primary Law in Michigan. 

A primary election was held in Wayne county, September 21, 
22 and 23, 1908. There is returned with our report official 
primary ballots of the Republican and Democratic parties. Upon 
the former there is one candidate for Congress, four for State 
Senator, fifty-one candidates for representatives in the Legisla¬ 
ture, with eleven to be elected at large, one for Judge of Probate, 
seven for Sheriff, three for County Clerk, three for County Treas¬ 
urer, two for Registrar of Deeds, three for Prosecuting Attorney, 
three for County Auditor, five for Circuit Court Commissioner, 
five for Coronor, three for Surveyor, three for County Road Com¬ 
missioner, six-year term, one for County Road Commissioner, one- 
year term, and four for County Road Commissioner, two-year 
term, making sixteen offices to be filled, counting the representa¬ 
tives in Legislature as one, and ninety-nine candidates. 

The population of the city is about 450,000, and the voting 
population about 70,000. 

Upon the Democratic primary ballot there was no contest, except 
three candidates for State Senator, and nine of the names for 
representatives in the Legislature were written in. 


179 


Upon the Republican primary ticket used at a previous election 
there were eighty-three candidates, with eleven to be chosen for 
representatives in the Legislature. The votes received by each can¬ 
didate are shown upon the ticket. 

Patrick J. M. 11 alley, a Democrat, and Corporation Counsel of 
the city of Detroit, appeared before the Committee and gave us 
the benefit of his observations of the operation of the Primary Law 
in Detroit. The Republican majority varies from seven to twen¬ 
ty-seven thousand. Mr. TIalley referred first to the first Primary 
Law in Detroit, that provided for the blanket ballot, each party 
having a column, but cross voting being prohibited; this was very 
unsatisfactory, as there were many spoiled ballots, and the Republi¬ 
cans insisted that the Democrats selected their candidates for the 
purpose of nominating the weakest man, who could be beaten at 
the election. There was evidently concerted action for this 
purpose. 

This law was changed so as to require separate ballots, but it 
did not prevent the practice which is almost as frequently in¬ 
dulged in to-day as it was under the first law. 

There is substantially no contest in the Democratic party, but it 
is very intense in the Republican party, and the large number 
of candidates induce Democrats, as well as Republicans to enter 
the primaries and vote, as there is very little challanging. Party 
enrollment may help to prevent this, but inasmuch as there are no 
contests in the Democratic party, certain elements probably will 
enroll as Republicans for primary purposes; this practice is 
destructive of party system. 

Mr. Halley expressed some doubt as to the constitutionality of 
the Enrollment Law and said that if the present court would fol¬ 
low the course of the old court in Michigan, it would be declared 
unconstitutional. 

The Primary Election Law was enacted because of corrupt prac¬ 
tices that were frequently indulged in in the conventions in Michi¬ 
gan, and this witness and others mentioned numerous occasions 

O / 

when delegates were openly bought so that it became quite a com¬ 
mon practice for certain delegates after the nomination of the 
candidate for whom they were instructed, to sell their votes to 
others. The law was passed forbidding a delegate to a political 



180 


convention to give a proxy. Before the law was passed, the chair¬ 
man of the Republican State and County Committee announced 
that the city ticket on the Republican side would be made up from 
a primary election and this was done without any authorization 
of law. Subsequently the Wayne county Primary Law of 1003 
was passed. 

It would have been better, according to the view of Mr. Halley, 
to have corrected the corrupt practices at the conventions than to 
have changed the system. Since the adoption of the new system, 
there have been many cases of ballot box- stuffing, and the pur¬ 
chasing of votes in certain wards along the river front has been 
open and notorious. There are local bosses or padrones who con¬ 
trol whole districts and for a consideration, deliver the vote. 

It will be remembered that there are three primary days and 
that the vote is not counted by the inspectors, but now taken to 
the Board of Canvassers and it has taken them sixty-four hours 
to count this ballot, employing sixty or seventy clerks. 

So far as the selection of candidates upon the Democratic ticket 
is concerned, Mr. Halley said that he did not know of any man 
that had been nominated under the primary system that would 
not have been the choice of the convention, as they have practically 
no contests in their party. 

The witness stated that if the convention system and the direct 
primary system were both equally surrounded by legal safeguards 
and protected by all the legal machinery that surrounds a general 
election, judging from his personal experience and observation, 
he would go back to the convention system; that as efficient govern¬ 
ment would be obtained and as high a class of officials by that 
method. 

Under the primary system, each candidate builds up a machine 
of his own and responds to that, but not to the people in general. 
He characterized that portion of the law of 1909, which endeavors 
to control the size of posters, pictures, etc., of candidates as ridi¬ 
culous. 

Popular government cannot be had without an occasional abuse 
creeping in and he could see no reason why the whole system 
should be changed simply because of this abuse; that it was better 
to correct the abuse than to change the system. That he had seen 



181 


more corruption and the use of money under the primary system 
in the same number of years than had been apparent under the 
convention system. 

Hon. James O. Mur fin, one of the judges of the Circuit Court 
of Wayne county, who was first appointed to succeed Judge Brook 
and elected at the general election in April, 1909, contributed his 
views upon the Primary Election Law of Michigan, under which 
he was nominated to the office he now holds. 

The Circuit Court is a court of record having both appellate 
and original j urisdiction, but from which appeals are taken to 
the Supreme Court, corresponding with our Court of Appeals. 

Judge Murfin is a Iiepublican and has been a member of the 
Republican central committee of the Wayne congressional dis¬ 
trict, but is now out of politics. 

He first gave the reason for the amendment to the law, which 
provides for the rotation of the names, and said that it was very 
noticeable that many voters, where there was a long list of names, 
marked the first name, giving to the one who was lucky enough 
to occupy that position a very great advantage and showing that 
the average voter voted blindly where there were so many candi¬ 
dates. He cited several instances where a number of the candi¬ 
dates for members of the Legislature were nominated on the Re¬ 
publican ticket and made most remarkable records, not that they 
were dishonest, but they were obviously grossly incompetent. 
“ One of them is a cuspidor cleaner here in the county building 
to-day and was at that time. It cost him a dollar to get his name 
on the ticket and they had to put up his dollar and his name 
happened to be first, and he got next to the largest vote of any of 
them, and that is the reason that it was actually determined that 
the names on the ballots must in all fairness to the candidates be 
rotated. 

The judge said that he had been active in State and local poli¬ 
tics for years, but when he went to the polls at the last primary 
he could not vote an intelligent vote to save his life. He was 
required to select eleven out of fifty-one legislative candidates, 
and it was impossible to do it intelligently; that he had more 
than one hundred requests from personal friends, men that he 
met in professional offices, banks, clubs, etc., who requested him 
to advise them how to vote the legislative ticket. He finally made 


182 


a study of it and having no interest in any of the candidates, 
simply made a large number of typewritten suggestions and 
handed them to his friends when the request was made of him. 

The newspapers sometimes made up a ticket of their cwn and 
advised the people as to which names to vote for, and many in¬ 
telligent men, relying upon their newspapers, would take with 
them this advice into the polls and mark according to the sugges¬ 
tions made in the paper. 

One of the most vicious provisions of the law is one that pro¬ 
vides for assisting the unintelligent voter in marking his ballot. 

The inspectors belong to both parties, but they have no interest 
in watching each other, as there is no contest between the par¬ 
ties; the result is that there is usually an understanding between 
these inspectors, who are interested in one or more candidates 
upon the dominant party ticket, and they enter the booth with 
the ignorant voter and mark his ballot according to their own 
wishes. lie referred to the Hinth ward in the city, which is 
overwhelmingly Democratic and is in the heart of the Polish 
district. Hot one man in twenty who votes there can read and 
write English or even speak it, and the result is that when the 
vote is counted there are very few Democratic votes polled because 
these people vote the Republican ticket, where the principal fight 
is being carried on. They enroll for that purpose. 

Referring to the methods of campaigning, Judge Mur fin said 
that the city just before the primary “ looks like a crazy quilt — 
there won’t he a telegraph pole or a light pole or an electric heat 
and power pole that is not plastered with signs and names and 
faces of persons; they will get out extra editions of papers and 
extra pages. I have seen on the Sunday previous to a primary by 
actual count sixteen additional pages in the Sunday press of cam 
didates advertising all the way from a full page in an important 
case to a small cut; some good looking men put in their own faces 
and some use false faces; I remember one time some fellow used 
my face. I don’t know why. So that the ordinary voter before 
the primaries, with all this costly advertising and billboard and 
street-car advertising before him, is hopelessly confused and you 
cannot expect one man in 10,000 to he able under these circum¬ 
stances to intelligently vote a ticket with as many different can¬ 
didates on as this one. 


1S3 


There is probably ten times as much advertising done at the 
primary as there is at the election, for the reason that in this 
county during the last ten or thirteen years a Republican nom¬ 
ination is generally equivalent to an election.” 

Conspicuously unfit candidates have been nominated, and 
Judge Murfin mentioned the case of Hoffman, who received the 
Republican nomination, but was beaten by a Democrat because 
it was ascertained that he had been a grafter while coroner and 
had served time for it. The advertising matter in the newspapers 
was not calculated to furnish the voter good information, but the 
editorial support of a paper gives a man a tremendous advan¬ 
tage over his opponent. 

Judge Murfin stated that he was opposed to the primary elec¬ 
tions when they originated, and that he had seen some cases where 
they had worked out splendid results, but in the main he thought 
it a very serious mistake. He thought if it were submitted to a 
popular vote it would probably carry four or five to one, but 
those that have watched it and studied it are all against it, and 
he thought the time would come when they would get tired of it 
and repeal it. 

The expenditure of money to get a nomination is lavish and 
startling. It is quite impossible to get a reputable business man 
to run for mayor. The reply is, “ Why, do you think I will go 
through the sort of campaign that you have got to go through to 
be nominated ? ” And they would refuse. 

Judge Murfin said that the Republican party in the State was 
obliged by its last platform to advocate a State-wide primary law 
and nominate everybody from governor down to coroner by direct 
vote, but at the last session of the Legislature they did not do that 
and he shuddered to think of what would happen with all the 
State officers to be nominated. 

Referring again to the influence of the press, Judge Murfin 
said that he thought the editorial policies of the papers were dic¬ 
tated solely and entirely from the box office, that is, from their 
receipts; he did not mean, however, by this that the moneys paid 
to the papers by the candidates for advertising necessarily con¬ 
trolled their policy, but that the papers endeavored to get upon 
the popular side, knowing that to be upon the unpopular side 


184 


impaired the circulation and decreased their revenue from gen¬ 
eral advertising. Political advertising, however, was very profit¬ 
able and the primary election last year netted the three largest 
papers of the city in general circulation over $20,000 increased 
advertising. In this connection it may be said Mr. Hunt, for¬ 
merly connected with the Detroit Journal, estimated that the 
newspapers of Detroit received for the personal advertising of 
candidates before the last primary something like $110,000. 

A very significant statement was made by Judge Murfin: 
“ The thing locally about the primary election that has disgusted 
me more than anything else is the fact that every man in touch 
with the situation is honestly and at heart opposed to it and none 
of them dare say so. I just went around on this floor here this 
morning while I was waiting for you gentlemen to come, just to 
see merely around among the men who are holding various offices, 
and every officer on this floor with one exception is at the bottom 
of his heart absolutely opposed to primary elections and knows 
that it is wrong, and you cannot get one of them to say so except 
in a very confidential way, and they stand out and advocate it 
and push it on the stump and put it in their platform, and if one is 
only running for county clerk he will say that he is for primary 
elections.’’ 

It was popular because of its history, hut if a secret ballot could 
be taken he believed it would be beaten; in the State at large, 
people who are not in touch with it and have not seen just what 
are the defects in its operation still think it is a great thing. 
Theoretically it is ideal, but it cannot be made practical. The 
defects are inherent and not capable of legislative correction. 

The witness referred to the last primary and the acrimonious 


debate conducted by the rival candidates: 

The Republican primary ballots cast for governor were. . 200,911 

Democratic primary votes cast for governor. 11,643 

Governor Warner received at the election. 262,141 

The Democratic candidate for governor received. 252,611 

Warner’s plurality being. 9,530 

The plurality on the presidential ticket for Taft electors 

over Warner was. 149,079 









185 


The other Republican State officers, who were nominated by 
convention, received substantially the same vote as the Republi¬ 
can presidential electors. This is attributed to the bitter discus¬ 
sion during the primary fight and men, who in the excitement 
of the primary called their opponents hard names, could hardly 
be expected to support them at the election. Ammunition was 
furnished for the other party and the question was frequently 
asked, “ What did you say about him before the primary '{ 77 Ex¬ 
cept for the presidential ticket, Governor Warner would undoubt¬ 
edly have been beaten. 

Under the old system of nominating candidates spent but very 
little money before the convention, but now the expenses were 
trebled at least. 

Judge Murfin said that none of his colleagues, with possibly 
one or two exceptions, approved of the direct primary. 

He particularly condemned the nomination of judges by this 
method and called attention to the fact that there were twenty- 
eight candidates for circuit judge on the Republican ticket and 
they had to plaster their names and faces and advertising all over 
in order to perpetuate themselves in office, a thing that no judge 
ought to have gone through. 

11 is impossible to get proper men selected in that way. Some 
men will not go through that ordeal to sit on the circuit bench. 

Referring to the operation of the primary in rural districts, 
Judge Murfin said that it was impossible to get a representative 
expression, as not one-third of the vote came out at the primary. 

It is only in cases of contest where people come out to the 
primary and then usually not more than half of the total vote 
was polled. He mentioned primaries in which not 10 per cent, 
of the people came out. The delegate to the last constitutional 
convention was nominated by only one-twentieth of the total vote. 
Under the old convention system, when there were contests, Judge 
Murfin said, he had seen as many people at the caucuses as at 
the primaries. So far as special interests and corporations are 
concerned, it was fully as easy for them to control the primaries 
as the convention. 

Henry M. Campbell, a prominent attorney of Detroit, partner 
of Mr. Russell, the general counsel for the Michigan Railroad 


186 


Company, and a member of the Constitutional Conveition of 
1007, was an interesting witness before the committee. 

Mr. Campbell stated that he had never been ambitious for 
political office and had declined a good many times to run. 

Mr. Campbell is the author of an article in the August, 1909, 
North American Review under the head of “ Republican Govern¬ 
ment versus Initiative and Primary Nomination,” and presented 
his views upon this subject and upon the subject of primary 
nominations, which are opposed to any of the methods of direct 
nominations in vogue. Mr. Campbell not only stated the situation 
in Michigan, but in Oklahoma, Oregon and other States where 
laws of this character have been in force for some time. He said 
that he had more or less correspondence with leading men in Ore¬ 
gon and that their views confirmed his, that the methods of the 
initiative, referendum aild recall have invariably in the long run 
proved disastrous; that they failed absolutely to represent the 
majority and the sentiment of the majority of the people. 

He particularly condemned the method of campaigning by the 
chief executive, who has been more than a month in going from 
town to town in an automobile, accompanied by a brass band and 
exploiting himself, passing out his pictures and asking for votes. 
His opponents were compelled to do the same thing and the 
expenses were enormous. 

Mr. Campbell also spoke along lines similar to those discussed 
by Judge Murfin, and read into the record that portion of his 
article in the North American Review referring to direct nom¬ 
inations. Just a few words may be quoted as indicating the 
mental attitude of Mr. Campbell toward this subject: 

“ This system has been adopted in many of the States; and in 
practice has lead to some results quite different from what its ad¬ 
vocates claimed for it. It has become apparent that only seekers 
after office become candidates for nomination — the office no 
longer seeks the man. The system destroys all party organiza¬ 
tion. Political policies and principles are entirely lost sight of in 
the confusion of individual ideas. It affords no opportunity for 
consideration of the fitness of candidates; each candidate, whether 
qualified or not, determines that question for himself. 

“ Voters are limited in their choice to such persons as present 


187 


themselves. If there are hut two candidates, the one selected may 
be considered the choice of a majority of the people, as between the 
two; hut it by no means follows that some one else would not have 
been more satisfactory than either, if some better method of ascer¬ 
taining the real wishes of the people were provided. If there are 
more than two candidates, as is usually the case, the almost inevi¬ 
table result is that the candidate selected is the choice of but a 
minority of the party; and as candidates multiply and the range 
of selection increases, a correspondingly reduced minority may 
foist upon the party a candidate who may be altogether objection¬ 
able to a large majority.” 

He referred to the Democratic candidate for lieutenant-gover¬ 
nor, Patrick H. Kelly, a poor man, and said the question was 
raised and discussed in the papers as to whether he could raise 
money enough to carry on a campaign in the primary, but he had 
finally announced that he had succeeded in raising a campaign 
fund for this purpose. 

It was stated that Julge Montgomery, who was a Republican 
candidate for Governor had stated publicly that he was in favor 
of direct primaries and Mr. Campbell referring to the Republican 
convention held in the spring of 1909, said that while the party 
endorsed officially the direct primary system, he believed it was 
the opinion of the majority of that convention that the system was 
not sound and if they had had the courage of their convictions, 
they would have denounced it instead of endorsing it; that there 
was a very strong sentiment upon that side. 

Mr. Charles D. Joslyn, who has been appointed by two Gover¬ 
nors as a member of the State Board of Fish Commissioners and 
is an attorney of standing in the city of Detroit, in general prac¬ 
tice there for the past thirty-five years, also expressed himself 
very decidedly against the primary system in Michigan. 

Mr. Joslyn has also contributed to the press a number of articles 
upon this subject. He maintains that the law fails to produce 
the results which are sought. Public sentiment in this State is 
undoubtedly against what is called the open primary, and in all 
the other crucial tests of this primary it has in effect become an 
open one. 


18S 


When asked if he would advise his son to enter public life 
through this method of obtaining a nomination, he replied that 
he would advise him against it very strongly, and said that the 
whole tendency of political campaigns under their primary is not 
only degrading, but in many instances corrupting. He mentioned 
many specific cases where young men had been financially and 
morally ruined through the temptation and excitement of a cam¬ 
paign for nomination at a primary. 

His attention was called to the statement of a gentleman, who 
expected to appear as a witness, but did not, to the effect that the 
people of the State of Michigan are dissatisfied with the primary 
law which they have, but complained that the politicians would 
not give them the kind of law that they wanted. Mr. Joslyn said 
in reply, that he knew that this was not correct, that the politicians 
had not hindered the movement, but had helped it along thinking 
they were making themselves popular; that they were constantly 
endeavoring to amend the law so as to overcome objections. He 
stated that the conservative business and professional element of 
society is opposed to the law and he did not believe that the bulk 
of the people of the State of Michigan are in favor of it. He 
thought that when it was first advocated they were, but that it had 
turned out as every primary law that he knew anything about did; 
that it was what its friends called “ defective,” did not produce 
the results they anticipated. 

Each session of the Legislature had tinkered with the primary 
law and each election following that tinkering has produced the 
same failure. The defects are inherent and cannot be cured. 

Referring to the participation of voters at the primary, he said 
that outside of Grand Rapids or Detroit, he should say that it 
was not above 8 per cent. 

Mr. Fred R. Schmalzriedt, a young attorney in the City Clerks’ 
Office, gave to the Committee the method of counting and canvass¬ 
ing the vote, and stated that it required sixty-four hours to count 
the primary ballot, with between seventy and 100 men working- 
all the time. 

The primary was held for three days so that the final 
results were not known until six days after the first day of the 
primary. Mr. Schmalzriedt was secretary of the board. He also 


189 


expressed his disapproval of the State primary in strong language, 
but believed that the city primary had worked reasonably well, 
although if there could be a delegate and convention system pro¬ 
tected by law, he would prefer it in the selection of candidates for 
public office. 

lie characterized the Michigan Primary Law as a “ regular 
farce.” He also commented quite severely upon the growing prac¬ 
tice of purchasing votes under the Primary Law. 

Observation of the Michigan System. 

While our investigation does not cover a great deal of territory 
in the State of Michigan, still conditions in other parts of the 
State than Detroit are referred to to some extent by the witnesses 
who appeared. 

From the evidence produced before us, it is impossible to draw 
any other conclusion than that the Michigan Primary Law previous 
to the law of 1909, which had not yet been tested, has proven very 
unsatisfactory, and the fact that such drastic changes and amend¬ 
ments have been made in the law of 1909 would indicate that at 
least a majority of the legislators disapproved of the law of 1907. 

It does not appear to have improved political conditions that 
existed under the delegate and convention system. 

The apparent desire to furnish everybody with an opportunity 
to vote at the primary by allowing three days has been without 
results, and the percentage of attendance is even smaller than in 
many other states where there is hut one primary day. 

As far as the Committee were able to ascertain, there is hut 
little in the Michigan Primary Law that would be profitable to 
copy into any law to be enacted in this State. 




190 


DIRECT PRIMARY LAWS IN STATES OTHER THAN 
THOSE VISITED BY THE COMMITTEE. 

No investigation has been made of the primary laws of the 
Southern States, for the reason that they bear many characteristics 
of a preliminary election, on account of the electoral conditions. 

A brief digest of the principal statutes of the Northern States 
relating to primary elections follow. The primary election laws 
of these States are in pamphlet form in the State Library. 


CALIFORNIA. 

In California, the first primary law adopted was held to be un¬ 
constitutional. An amendment to the constitution permitting such 
law was subsequently adopted, submitted to vote and ratified. A 
State-wide direct primary was passed in 1909. 

The act does not apply to special elections, presidential electors, 
municipalities, whose charters provide a system of nominating 
candidates, officers for reclamation of irrigation districts, school 
district officers other than in a city, or delegates to national con- 
venton. 

Graduated percentage of signers to nomination petition required 
not exceeding 10 per cent. Filing fee of from ten to fifty dollars 
required. Separate ballots for each party. 

Primary election officers are the same as for general election. 
Party committees elected at the primary. Limitation according to 
office of expense to candidates for nomination, based upon the 
number of votes cast and statute designates what legal expenses 
are allowed. 


MISSOURI. 

Laws of 1907, page 262. Mandatory for entire State, including 
United States Senator and excepting presidential electors and 
national delegates. County committeemen are chosen at the 
primary, who in turn choose delegates to district convention. The 
party castng 1 per cent, of the vote s subject to the law. 




191 


Separate party ballots are used and graded percentage require¬ 
ments for signers of the candidates’ petitions. 

The party State platform is framed by the State committee, 
consisting of two members from each congressional district. 


NEBRASKA. 

Laws of 1907, Chapter 52. Mandatory for entire State, includ¬ 
ing United States Senator, excepting local officers and officers of 
cities under 25,000. Delegates selected by county committees to 
State convention formulate platform and the candidates appoint 
campaign committees. A tiling fee for candidates at the primary 
is required varying from five dollars for county, legislative and 
city officers to fifty dollars for United States Senator. The candi¬ 
date’s name may be on more than one ticket if so designated. 
Separate party ballots are required and an enrollment of party 
affiliation. The party polling 1 per cent, of the vote is subject 
to the law. 


NEW JERSEY. 

The Pimary Election Laws of New Jersey were amended in 
1906. 

It provides that nominations for presidential electors, governor, 
members of Congress, of General Assembly, State Senate, county 
clerk, surrogate, register of deeds, sheriff, county supervisor, coro¬ 
ner, mayor and for all elective officers in the State and in the 
cities, towns and other municipalities of the State to be voted for 
at the general election for members of Assembly by the voters of 
more than one ward or township, shall be nominated at conven¬ 
tions composed of delegates chosen at primary elections held pur¬ 
suant to the act. All candidates of political parties for offices to be 
voted for at the general election for members of Assembly by the 
voters of a single ward or township shall be nominated directly 
without conventions at the primary elections. Primaries are con¬ 
ducted at public expense. 




192 


NORTH DAKOTA. 

Laws of 1907, Chapter 109. State-wide and mandatory, includ¬ 
ing United States Senator, bnt excepts officers of cities and minor 
localities. Nomination papers are to be signed by from 3 to 
5 per cent, of the voters and a filing fee of 1 per cent, of the 
salary is required. Separate party ballots are provided and parties 
polling 5 per cent, of the vote for Governor are subject to the 
law. Nominees must poll at least 30 per cent, of the vote. Names 
to be alternated on the ballot. 


OHIO. 

The law will be found at page 214 of the Laws of 1908. It 
applies to county, city and local officers, congressmen from one- 
county districts. It may also include United States Senator. 
County committeemen are chosen at the primary. Nominations 
are made by petition signed by 2 per cent, of the voters. Sepa¬ 
rate party ballots provided and a party polling 10 per cent, of the 
vote cast is subject to the law. 


OKLAHOMA. 

Laws of 1908, Chapter 31. Mandatory, State wide, including 
United States Senator, and excepting presidential electors and 
national delegates.. Delegates are selected at the primary and 
formulate the platform. State, county and city committeemen 
are chosen at the primary. Graded number of signers to petitions 
is required. Separate party ballots of different colors are furnished 
and enrollment of party membership provided for. A limitation 
in amount of expenditure in primary campaign is provided for. 


OREGON. 

Laws of 1905, Chapter 1. Adopted by initiative and referen¬ 
dum. It is mandatory for State and for district, county and 
municipal elections, in unit of over 2,000 population and includes 
United States Senator. Precinct committeemen are chosen at the 
primary and they form county and city committees and elect 
member to a State committee. Candidates’ petition must be 





193 


signed by 2 per cent, of the voters. Separate party ballots of 
different colors are provided. The law provides for party enroll¬ 
ment. Only parties casting 25 per cent, of the entre vote 
are subject to the law. This provision eliminates many minor 
parties and reduces the expense of providing ballots for parties 
so largely in minority that contests for nominations are unlikely. 


SOUTH DAKOTA. 

Laws of 1907, Chapter 139. Mandatory for the State, includ¬ 
ing United States Senator, but excludes city and town officers, 
which may be included by popular vote. Precinct committeemen 
are chosen at the primary and county delegates, one for every 100 
votes of the party, form the State convention and adopt the plat¬ 
form. Candidates’ petitions must be signed by from 1 to 3 per 
cent, of the vote for candidates, and a graded fee of from five 
to fifty dollars is required. Separate party ballots of different 
colors are provided. The nominee must poll at leaist 30 per cent, 
of the vote, otherwise the choice goes to the convention. 


WASHINGTON. 

Laws of 1907, Chapter 209. Mandatory for entire State includ¬ 
ing United States Senator. Excludes fourth class city, town and 
some local officers. Precinct delegates to county convention chosen 
at primary. Piling fee of ten dollars with 1 per cent, additional 
on salary over $1,000 required. Separate party ballots are pro¬ 
vided and the names entered in the order of filing petition. All 
judicial candidates are on non-partisan basis and must appear on 
all ballots. Only parties that poll 10 per cent, of the vote are 
subject to the law. The objects of expenditure are named and 
limitation provided for. Selection of State candidates, when there 
are four or more for any office, there is provision for “ second 
choice ” voting and such choice is counted if no first choice nomi¬ 
nation is made by 40 per cent, of the vote. 

Of the states above mentioned the law seems to have been longest 
in operation in the State of Oregon, which was passed in 1905. 
This law was enacted upon initiative petition at the June election 
held June 6, 1904. 

7 




194 


So short a time has elapsed since the enactment of such legisla¬ 
tion in the States mentioned that the operation of the laws must 
be regarded as still in the experimental stage. Many of the States 
have had but one trial and as many of them have biennial elec¬ 
tions not more than two or three tests of the primary have been 
had. Many amendments are introduced at every session of the 
Legislature intended to overcome defects that were apparent in 
such trials of the law as have been had. 



195 


NEW YORK STATE. 

The resolution appointing the Committee authorized it to take 
evidence in the State of New York, and it was therefore deemed 
wise to obtain such evidence as was available as to the working of 
the Primary Laws of this State in the cities of Buffalo and New 
York, and also to obtain some evidence as to the methods pursued 
in nominating candidates in rural counties, and to ascertain the 
reasons, if -possible, for the general demand for primary reform 
throughout the State. 

Sessions of the Committee were accordingly held in the city of 
Buffalo, in the county of Orleans and in the city of New York. 
It would have been profitable, had time permitted, to have held 
sessions in other cities and rural counties, but the Committee felt 
that it was able from such hearings as it had to get a fairly correct 
idea of the methods pursued in rural counties for the nomination 
of candidates for office, of the working of the primary laws now 
in force in our cities, and of the demands and necessities of primary 
reform throughout the State. 

The more weighty objections made to the Erie county system, 
as disclosed by the evidence taken in Buffalo, were, 

First. That an official primary ballot is not provided upon 
which should be placed the names of delegates to all conventions, 
whether the delegates suggested by the regular party organizations 
or other delegates who may be suggested by candidates acting 
independently. 

The present practice is for the party organizations to prepare 
their own ticket, upon which are placed not only the names of the 
delegates suggested but the names of candidates for offices that are 
voted for directly like supervisor, alderman and ward committee- 
man. 

An independent organization or a person desiring to be a candi¬ 
date under these circumstances is obliged to furnish his own ticket 
and has small chance of success at the primary unless a full ticket 
is presented by such organization or individual to the voters at the 
primary. 

Second. That the names of delegates and candidates to be voted 


196 


for at the primary are not required to be filed or their names pub¬ 
lished any specified time before the primary day, and it is incon¬ 
venient, if not impossible, for independent organizations or indi¬ 
viduals, who may desire to be candidates, to ascertain in advance 
of the primary who are the delegates suggested by party organiza¬ 
tions and who are the organization candidates for such offices as 
are to be voted for directly, including ward committees, etc. 

If the so-called Erie county system should have added to it a 
provision for an official ballot for each party to be printed at 
public expense, upon which the names of all candidates for dele¬ 
gates to all conventions and all candidates for offices to be voted for 
directly, are required to be placed; and if all suggestions and nomi¬ 
nations of delegates and candidates for offices to be voted for 
directly were required to be filed ten days or two weeks before the 
primary day, it would cure most of the evils now complained of. 

If a joint primary were to be held by the regular election officers 
under all proper statutory safeguards as to party enrollment, etc., 
the system, we think, for a municipality like Buffalo would be 
quite ideal so long as partisan politics are permitted or thought 
desirable in the administration of municipal affairs. 

In this connection very valuable suggestions looking toward an 
amendment of the law were made by Mr. George D. Emerson, the 
commissioner of elections of Erie county, whose testimony appears 
at pages 2803 to 2828. 

It will be remembered that Mr. Emerson at the last session of 
the Legislature proposed an amendment providing in substance 
that the primary election should be held at the regular polling 
places in each district instead of rearranging those districts as is 
now the practice. This met the approval of the Kepublican, Demo¬ 
cratic, Prohibition and Socialistist parties, was favorably com¬ 
mented upon by all the newspapers and there seemed to be no 
objection in the system. It passed both houses of the Legislature 
without comment or criticism, and failed of executive approval. 

Mr. Emerson believed that with such amendment as suggested 
the law would be quite satisfactory to the electorate of the city — 
that it is now quite satisfactory, and there is no general agitation 
for a change. The city still has the convention system outside of 
the three ward officers, supervisor, alderman and constable, but the 


197 


party could extend the direct system to mayor, if they so desired, 
but that is not the practice in either party. 

Hon. Ansley Wilcox, of Buffalo, testified at some length before 
the Committee and made numerous suggestions as to the modifica¬ 
tions of the Primary Law, the shortening of the ballot by the 
elimination of minor offices, and submitted in writing some plans 
for direct nominations of candidates for city offices, all of which 
are printed at length in the record of his testimony, pages 2650 
to 2710. 

Mr. Wilcox’s suggestions had reference almost entirely to 
municipal elections and it is impossible to set forth at length in 
this report the methods advocated by him. Upon the general 
question of direct nominations, he said, page 2700: “ I would like 
to say this more distinctly than I have yet, that my belief is that 
an attempt to extend the direct primary system beyond the limits 
of a compact community so as to spread it over the entire State 
would be fatal to the cause of good government in the State and 
that it involves evils and dangers which are of the first magnh 
tude. * * * I believe, notwithstanding the good motives and 

the high ideals that I know underlie the bill and which are of the 
best, that its results would be precisely the opposite that its advo¬ 
cates expected and that it would do great harm and no good.” 

Mr. Wilcox strongly advocated a limitation upon the amount of 
money that a candidate for nomination might expend. 

Mr. Henry Adsit Bull, a prominent lawyer of Buffalo, explained 
to the Committee in detail the method of nominating candidates in 
Buffalo, and pointed out the specific objections above alluded to, 
that is, the failure to file lists of the proposed candidates long 
enough before the primary day to enable those who might wish to 
contest to do so with knowledge of the names of the delegates or 
candidates against him. Mr. Bull expressed himself strongly 
against any plan by which a political organization should have any 
advantage of an artificial character in favor of the candidate that 
they recommend, and advocated that all candidates should have 
an equal show before the voters of the party. 

The practice in Buffalo of not disclosing the names of delegates 
and candidates is the vital point of the whole system and has 
provoked a lot of criticism. The criticism has been directed to 


198 


that feature of the law and the practice under it, and some have 
condemned the entire system instead of looking for a particular 
point of weakness. 

He also advocated such an official ballot as the Republican State 
convention in 1908 declared in favor of. He advocated also the 
Massachusetts or Australian ballot for primaries, but was not in 
favor of it for use in general elections. 

Another objection to the present system is that the ballot is not 
a secret ballot at the primaries, but they are distributed in advance 
in large numbers and it is perfectly possible for the committeemen 
to put a ballot into the hands of a voter and watch him while he 
goes up and votes that identical ballot. 

There should also be a sample ballot which an illiterate voter 
could mark or have marked for him and take to the booth and 
mark his ballot to correspond. 

Mr. Bull also advised that the primary day should be combined 
with the first day of registration, not only for the purpose of 
saving expense, but in order to attract more voters to the polls on 
that day. 

Mr. Bull thought that member of Asesmbly in Buffalo could be 
nominated by direct nomination, as the Assembly district is only 
about twice the size of some of the largest wards, but would not 
extend the system beyond that. 

Another suggestion worthy of consideration was that the law 
should provide that no person holding an appointive office under 
the national, State, county or municipal government should be 
allowed to serve as the committeeman of a party or as a delegate 
to any convention; the reason being that an appointee owes his 
position to some superior officer, in whose interest he would en¬ 
deavor to make up a “ slate ” of candidates. The convention ought 
to be made up of men who have no strings on them whatever, who 
will vote and who are free to vote according to what they think 
right, without being liable to lose their jobs if they do not vote 
the way somebody else wants them to. 

Another very important suggestion, and one which was fre¬ 
quently made to the Committee and which has been used as a basis 
of argument in favor of a State-wide direct nomination scheme, is 
in reference to the so-called intermediate convention; and he ad- 


199 


vised that such conventions be abolished and delegates to all con¬ 
ventions be elected by direct vote at the primary. This would make 
conventions more truly representative. 

In cases of a contest in the convention each delegate casts the 
number of votes which were cast in his district for the candidate 
of his party for Governor at the last preceding election, except the 
delegates from certain rural towns, who are allowed double the 
number of votes cast for the candidate for Governor. Mr. Bull 
condemned this practice and thought that there should be a straight 
delegate vote. 

Mr. Wallace Thayer appeared before the Committee, interested 
particularly in the so-called Hinman-Green bill, and stated that 
the principal defect in the Erie county system is that the mass of 
voters do not attend the primaries, and when asked as to whether 
that was a defect in the law or a lack of interest on the part of the 
voter he replied: “ It is a defect in the principle of the law,” and 
severely condemned the delegate system upon the assumption that 
delegates were manipulated by political organizations in conven¬ 
tion. Mr. Thayer spoke at length in condemnation of the con¬ 
vention system, and particularly condemned the practice in Buffalo 
of not disclosing the names of the delegates who were suggested by 
political organizations, and the fact that the law compelled a person 
who might wish to act independently to print a ticket and create an 
organization throughout the city that could contend with the regu¬ 
lar organizations of the great parties. 

If the present law should be amended so as to compel political 
organizations to publish their ticket long enough before the primary 
to give every voter exact information as to the candidates and dele¬ 
gates proposed, it would overcome some of the evils, but not the 
greatest. 

Kef erring again to the Hinman-Green bill, Mr. Thayer thought 
it would work excellently for Governor, but it would operate un¬ 
justly, if at all, in selecting the other State officers, such as Secre¬ 
tary of State, State Engineer and Surveyor, etc. 

Mr. II. D. Butterfield, connected with the “ Direct Nominations 
League ” of Erie county, also called attention to the defective work¬ 
ing of the Erie county system along the same lines mentioned by 
Mr. Bull. 


200 


Mr. Lewis Stockton, president of the “ Referendum League ” of 
Erie county, appeared in opposition to the principles of the present 
primary election law, and also in opposition to the principle con¬ 
tained in the Hinman-Green bill, and went into a general discus¬ 
sion of the subject. His principal objection to the Hinman-Green 
bill was the provision for a party committee, which he thought 
could be impressed by party leaders into making nominations ac¬ 
cording to their dictation, and that it would perpetuate a system 
whereby party nominating committees are so brought under the 
party leaders’ influence that the party nominees become practically 
an appointment of the party leader. 

He commended the Oregon Referendum Law. The organization 
represented by Mr. Stockton is non-partisan and particularly in¬ 
terested in city affairs. He condemned the party method of gov¬ 
ernment of cities, commending particularly the plan recently 
adopted in Boston. He would not extend the nomination of officers 
by petition beyond the confines of a city, and would only apply it 
to such cities as voted for it. 

The Committee was also favored by the testimony of Mayor 
James N. Adam, who spoke generally in favor of non-partisan 
administration of city affairs. 

He opposed the personal enrollment, particularly in primaries, 
for the nomination of city officers. 

The mayor said that he had never affiliated for the purpose of 
voting at the primary, although he was supposed to be a Democrat. 

Mr. John J. Smith, of Buffalo, expressed himself in favor of 
doing away with the system of convention and the nomination of 
city and county candidates by direct vote, but he would not abolish 
the Assembly, Senatorial and State conventions. 

It was also disclosed by the testimony of some of the witnesses 
in Buffalo that there was a considerable number of persons who 
apparently voted the minority ticket at the election and who lived 
in wards where the opposite party was largely dominant, enrolled 
themselves with the opposite party for primary purposes. It was 
impossible to ascertain to what extent this practice prevailed; it 
simply showed the tendency and possibilities under the enrollment 
law. 


201 


In cases of contest in various wards, as shown by the evidence 
of Mr. Emerson, commissioner of elections, the attendance at the 
primaries frequently amounted to 50 or 60 per cent., and where 
there were no contests from 10 to 20 per cent, of the enrolled vote. 

The Committee held a short session at Albion, Orleans county, 
and a number of witnesses volunteered information as to the 
method of conducting caucuses and conventions in that county, 
which has only three large towns, Albion of about 5,000, Medina 
of about the same size, and Holley of about 2,000. The total popu¬ 
lation is about 31,000. The county is nominally Republican by 
about 1,800. 

The Republican party holds one convention which nominates 
candidates and elects delegates to other conventions, and in this 
convention each town, regardless of population, is represented by 
five delegates, and there seems to be a strong opposition to any 
other method of representation according to population. There 
are six towns that have a much smaller voting population than the 
other four and they seriously object to the change as it would 
give the other four towns the control; as it is the six country towns 
control the nominations. Under the proposed Hinman-Green bill 
four towns could control the nominations. 

On the other hand, the Democratic party is represented in con¬ 
vention by two delegates from every election district, making forty- 
four for the convention, and more nearly representing the popu¬ 
lation than the method adopted by the Republican party. 

The early calling of the conventions and caucuses and the lack 
of any definite date for these is strongly criticised. The practice 
has been to hold caucuses of both parties upon the same day 
throughout the towns of the county. 

County Judge Isaac S. Signor, who testified before the Com¬ 
mittee, thought if the date and method of holding caucuses and 
date and method of conducting conventions were fixed by statute 
it would be more satisfactory to the people in general. 

It also appeared from Judge Signor’s testimony that town offi¬ 
cers were nominated by conventions, the delegates being elected at 
school district caucus. 

Judge Signor advocated personal registration in the rural dis¬ 
tricts and thought that the farmers in the country districts should 


202 


be compelled to personally register, whether they liked it or not; 
that a man that does not take interest enough in the election to 
spend two days, one to register and one to vote, ought not to be 
a voter. He also advocated that primary day should be held on 
the first day of registration, and that there should be a limit to the 
expenditure of money in obtaining nominations. 

Mr. Herbert T. Reed, clerk of the Surrogate’s Court; Mr. 
Spencer W. Tanner, an Independent Democrat; Mr. Thomas E. 
Kirby, formerly district attorney of Orleans county, and Mr. 
Lafayette H. Beach, formerly a newspaper publisher, also ap¬ 
peared before the Committee and explained the methods of nomi¬ 
nating candidates in Orleans county. 

Attention is called to the fact that there is little uniformity in 
the method of nominating county officers and electing delegates to 
other conventions in the various rural counties. 

In Orleans county, as above stated, the unit of representation in 
the Republican party is the town, while in the Democratic party 
it is the election district. In other counties each town has a mini¬ 
mum representation and the delegation is increased according to 
the voting population. 

Some towns in the same county hold a town convention, dele¬ 
gates being elected to this town convention from the school districts 
or from election districts, and the town convention in turn elects 
delegates to the county convention. In some counties two or more 
conventions are held, one for the nomination of county officers and 
another for the election of delegates to judicial, senatorial and 
State conventions. 

There is a practice in some towns where there is a contest be¬ 
tween two candidates in the same town for the same or different 
county offices, of voting directly for the candidate and allowing the 
candidate to name the delegation, who shall be favorable to his 
nomination. 

Another plan is for the candidate to select a delegation placing 
his name at the head under the designation of the office for which 
he is a candidate, and the caucus then votes for the contesting 
delegation. 

The attendance at the caucuses in cases of contest compares 
favorably with the attendance at the primary elections in the 


203 


western States where there are spirited contests between candidates. 

In some caucuses the delegates to a county convention are nomi¬ 
nated and voted upon one at a time, and in others the entire dele¬ 
gation is elected by a vote cast by the secretary of the caucus. 

In order that the votes of the delegates to conventions may be 
known to all it is not an unusual practice to require that delegates, 
upon roll call, shall be required to arise and announce their choice 
for any candidate being voted for, and this practice has received 
a good deal of commendation. 

The principal evil of the delegate and convention system in rural 
districts in the State complained of is the practice sometimes in* 
dulged in by party leaders of calling caucuses at different dates in 
different towns, sometimes early, sometimes late, without sufficient 
notice. 

In many counties it has come to be an established rule of the 
party that all caucuses of a political party shall be held upon the 
same day, usually two or three days before the convention, and 
this practice is to be commended, and if the date of holding 
caucuses and conventions had been fixed by statute, and not longer 
than sixty or seventy days before the election, much of the criti¬ 
cism which has been made against the delegate and convention 
system in rural counties would never have been uttered. 

The Committee desired information as to the operation of the 
Primary Election Law of this State in the city of Hew York, and 
also upon the question as to whether or not a so-called “ fusion ” 
could be readily effected under a general system of direct 
nominations. 

The Committee accordingly met at the Appellate Division court 
house in the city of Hew York on December 9, and was favored 
with the attendance of 

Hon. William II. Wadhams, president of the Direct Primary 
League; 

Professor Henry Jones Ford, professor of politics in Princeton 
University; 

Professor Frank J. Goodnow, professor of administrative law 
and Municipal science in Columbia University; 

Hon. William M. Ivins, of Hew York; 


204 


Mr. Robert S. Binkerd, secretary of the “ City Club ” of New 
York; 

Mr. William B. Selden, chairman of the Cleveland Democracy, 
and Dr. Charles W. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard 
University. 

Judge Wadhams explained to the Committee how “ fusion ” in 
the last municipal election was brought about between the Com¬ 
mittee of One Hundred and the Republican city convention, and 
said that he regarded it as one of the great advantages of the 
Committee plan under the Hinman-Green bill that it lends itself 
readily to bringing about a true fusion, that is a union of diverse 
elements upon a ticket which should be so made up as to appeal 
to the voters in each of the parties joining in the fusion, so as to 
elect a ticket by a combination of those elements as against some 
common enemy. He claimed that such a self appointed com¬ 
mittee as the Committee of One Hundred could enter into nego¬ 
tiations with the legalized committee provided for in the Hinman- 
Green bill, and as a result of such conference be able to obtain 
from the party committee an endorsement of candidates suggested 
by the fusion committee, or an endorsement of the candidates sug¬ 
gested by the party committee by such fusion committee, and that 
such result would add great strength to the party candidate. This, 
of course, would not prevent any independent candidate for the 
head of the ticket or any minor position upon it from making an 
effort to obtain the nomination. He claimed that Mr. Bannard, 
the Republican candidate for mayor, who was endorsed by the 
Committee of One Hundred, was handicapped in his contest be¬ 
cause under the present system there was an entirely unofficial 
selection. 

At the primary, if the party voters do not desire a fusion they 
can substitute some candidate of their own. 

Other candidates may seek the nomination and might prevent 
fusion by means of their political activity, but Judge Wadhams 
did not think it likely. 

He cited the case of D. Clarence Gibboney, the candidate for 
district attorney in Philadelphia, who, under the Pennsylvania 
Primary Election Law became the nominee of the William Penn 
party and Democratic party, and received a large vote from the 


205 


Republican party, and asserted that under the Hinman-Green bill, 
if fusion was desired, Democrats could be candidates for the nomi¬ 
nation upon the Republican ticket, but if he were put upon the 
Republican primary ticket he could not be voted for by those 
members of the Democratic party who might desire fusion, and 
who could and would vote for him if on the Democratic ticket. 

Judge Wadhams also maintained that party enrollment was 
necessary in order to have any success in direct primaries. He 
declined to make the general statement that the Hinman-Green 
bill meets all the necessary requirements of a Direct Primary Law T 
and is satisfactory in every way; he thought it was the best bill 
that had been suggested, but that there were certain minor features 
of it, more particularly with reference to the machinery and the 
method of carrying out the preliminaries for the making of sug¬ 
gestions to be presented to the enrolled voters on primary day in 
the counties up the State, which might be improved. One sug¬ 
gestion was that the election district rather than the town should 
be the voting place, in charge of the regular inspectors of election. 
He thought the method of counting the ballots and giving credit to 
the candidates should be left to the party committees to determine 
for themselves. 

One of the serious objections to the present method of conduct¬ 
ing primaries in New York city is the fact that there is no official 
ballot and the party committeemen make up the ticket so that any¬ 
one who desires to contest it must get up an entire ticket. An 
official ballot upon which all delegates should be placed, whether 
suggested by the party committees or by party members or groups 
of members on petition, would in large measure remedy this con¬ 
dition, if they were obliged to file their list of delegates and candi¬ 
dates a certain number of days before the primary, with an oppor¬ 
tunity to present counter-lists. 

Professor Henry Jones Ford, of Princeton University, was a 
voluntary witness before the Committee, and discussed in a general 
way direct primary systems in the United States. Professor Ford 
takes a very strong position against any system of direct nomina¬ 
tions, his argument covering the general objections stated by so 
many witnesses who were before the Committee in the States 
where direct nominations systems are in vogue. 


206 


Professor Ford is the author of an article on the Direct Primary, 
published in the July, 1909, number of the North American 
Review, to which he made reference, and reaffirmed the views 
therein expressed. This article is made a part of the record as it 
is valuable from an historical and academic point of view, and it 
appears at the close of the testimony given by Professor Ford, at 
page 3103 of the record. 

Attention is also called to letters received by the chairman of 
this committee and made a part of the record from page 3104 to 
3115. 

Professor Frank J. Goodnow, who has been connected with 
Columbia University for twenty-five years, and is the author of 
“ Municipal Home Pule,” “ Municipal Problems,” “ City Govern¬ 
ment of the United States,” “ Municipal Government,” and a book 
called “ Politics and Administration,” appeared before the com¬ 
mittee. Professor Goodnow has made an extensive study, not only 
in this State hut in the principal cities of the world, including 
Australia and Hew Zealand, of municipal problems and systems 
for the nomination of candidates for office. 

When asked with reference to a possible fusion under the Direct 
Primary system, he said that it was certainly conceivable that any 
arrangement that might be reached between a minority party and 
independents would not he ratified at a primary of that minority 
party. That independent candidates might make an active cam¬ 
paign and obtain the plurality as against candidates suggested by 
a legalized committee under a direct primary law and fusion pre¬ 
vented. All fusion presupposes conference, preliminary confer¬ 
ences by self appointed committees. The best system for the nomi¬ 
nation of candidates is that which will select people who will work 
together in the interest of the entire community, and result in 
better government. It is results that should be sought in all these 
matters rather than methods, and that method which secures the 
best results for an entire community was, in the judgment of 
Professor Goodnow, the best method. There is no theory in favor 
of any particular method. Any method which will be successful 
in reaching the desired result must eliminate a great many of the 
offices which are now under our system elected. Compared with 
the various municipal governments throughout the. world our 


207 


municipal government is practically the only one that attempts to 
get very many of its officers through the processes of election. In 
England practically no one is elected except members of council ; 
the same rule prevails in France and in Italy and in Prussia. It 
is absolutely impossible to conduct a municipal government suc¬ 
cessfully on the basis of the free general election of officers. 

Professor Goodnow expressed the opinion that unless you have 
an extremely strong party organization where there is a great 
number of elective officers, you get a lot of people in office who will 
not pull together; there is no “ team work ” but individualism, 
and a government under these conditions is liable to be inefficient. 

He said it would be extremely difficult for the ordinary voter to 
know the qualifications and characteristics of men who might offer 
themselves as candidates for public office in a city the size of Hew 
York, where it requires signs in four languages to tell the people 
to keep off the grass, English, Italian, German and Yiddish. 

One suggestion made by Professor Goodnow to the Committee 
that drafted the Hinman-Green bill, was that following the English 
scheme of uncontested elections, if the suggestions or nominations 
made by party committees were not opposed, that they should not 
of necessity go before the primary, but should be regarded as 
nominees of the party. He thought this would save a great deal of 
expense and frequently the holding of a primary might be avoided 
as it would be a mere formality under such circumstances. Atten¬ 
tion was called to the case of the candidate of United States Sen¬ 
ator in Maryland, who had no opposition but was obliged to go 
through the formality of a primary at his personal expense of 
about $16,000. 

Professor Goodnow does not regard the Hinman-Green bill by 
any means as an example of a pure direct nomination; that the 
committee system is a representative system. 

Mr. Kobert S. Binkerd, secretary of the City Club of Hew York, 
expressed views favorable to a direct nominations system along the 
same lines indicated by Judge Wadhams. He went to quite an 
extent into the history of nominating systems in the United States 
in an exceedingly entertaining and instructive manner. He ad¬ 
vocated the abolition of all conventions and an extension of the 
direct nominating system to the State at large, but said that he 


208 


would like a blanket ballot on which he could vote for a candidate 
for each office, even though he might be Republican, Democrat, 
Prohibitionist or anything else; if, however, the party idea was 
to prevail, then enrollment, he thought, was necessary, and in this 
connection, that personal registration would be necessary in country 
districts as well as in the city. 

He said he approved of the passage of the Ilinman-Green bill 
in its present form, at least of its general principles, because he 
thought it a step toward a still better electoral system; he thought, 
however, that it was not quite fair that the candidates suggested 
by the party committees should be the first names under the desig¬ 
nation of office, as it would give him an advantage with the illit¬ 
erate voter. 

Mr. Binkerd also expressed the belief that an official primary 
ballot and a requirement that the names of delegates and candi¬ 
dates to be voted for at the primary should be filed in advance of 
the primary, would take away part of the artificial advantage 
which is at present conferred on those who control the party 
organizations. 

Mr. William B. Selden, the chairman of the Cleveland Democ¬ 
racy, presented his views to the Committee upon the direct primary 
plans in general, citing some instances of his experience in Hew 
York. 

He expressed the belief, after a careful consideration and dis¬ 
cussion with many gentlemen connected with the Republican 
organization, the Democratic organization and the Independence 
League, that the committee provision of the Hinman-Green bill 
would result in a political oligarchy for the two dominant parties 
in the State of Hew York. After their examination of the Hin¬ 
man-Green bill they prepared a bill for an official primary which 
was subsequently introduced by Mr. Hewcomb. 

Mr. Selden was engaged for several months in the organization 
of the Cleveland Democracy, enrolling voters, etc., and secured 
quite an enrollment, and as a representative of that organization 
participated in conferences that endeavored to bring about fusion, 
and one of the objections which he made to the Hinman-Green bill 
was that it would not allow Independents any expression of opinion 
at all in the primary politics and would have been absolutely im- 


209 


possible under the Hinman-Green bill for an independent move¬ 
ment to have become inaugurated politically anywhere in the State 
of New York while that law was operative. 

It perpetuates an oligarchy and leaves the voter powerless. It 
is simply centralizing more and more the power of a political 
organization into the hands of fewer and fewer people that are 
less responsible to the general voter. 

Reference was made in the summary of the evidence as to the 
operation of the Primary Law of Massachusetts, to the testimony 
of Dr. Charles W. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard University. 

This evidence was taken in New York city at the close of the 
hearing there, and it is not necessary to repeat the substance of 
the statements of President Eliot, who severely condemned the 
direct nomination or primary law, so far as it affected municipal 
conditions in the city of Boston. 

Mr. John R. Dos Passos, a prominent attorney of New York 
city, requested permission of the Committee to file a communica¬ 
tion containing his views upon the subject of direct nominations, 
and the permission was granted, and the same is made a part of 
the record. Mr. Dos Passos expressed in earnest and vigorous lam 
guage his disapproval of any system of direct primaries, contend¬ 
ing for an improved representative system. 

Jacob Gould Schurman, president of Cornell University, trans¬ 
mitted to the Committee a copy of his speech upon the subject of 
direct nominations delivered before the Committee of One Hun¬ 
dred at Utica on February 5, 1909, in which he takes a very posi¬ 
tive position against the enactment into a law of a general system 
of direct nominations in the State of New York. President 
Schurman has reached his conclusions upon this subject after an 
extensive tour of the middle west and western states, including 
Oregon and Washington, and after a careful study of the systems 
of these states and conferences with leading citizens as to the 
results and operations obtained. In his letter of transmission 
President Schurman states to the Committee that he retains un¬ 
changed the views expressed by him in the speech referrd to, and 
maintains that the arguments presented by him against the system 
have not been satisfactorily answered. 


210 


The Cost of a State-Wide Direct Primary Law in 
This State. 

The Committee has endeavored to obtain satisfactory data as 
to the expense to the public of conducting a single State-wide 
primary election, but as the compensation to election officers and 
the rental of polling places varies throughout the State it is quite 
impossible to arrive at any very accurate figures. 

If a primary election is conducted by the regular election officers 
in each of the polling places in the State, so far as the conduct of 
the election is concerned, it will cost substantially the same as the 
regular election, excluding the cost of registration. 

In Hew York, Kings, Queens and Richmond counties there are 
1,633 election districts and 3,035 election districts in the balance 
of the State, making 4,688 in all; eight election officers are re¬ 
quired by law to be in charge of each polling place, and the com¬ 
pensation varies from two to six dollars a day. It is, however, the 
practice to allow for two days because of the counting of the ballots. 
The canvass of primary ballots will ordinarily require more time 
than the canvass of the election ballots, because the vote cast for 
each individual candidate must be counted separately as there will 
be no such thing as “ straights ” and “ splits.” The experience of 
the city of Detroit, which has had a central canvassing board for 
primary elections, as previously stated, is that it required from 
seventy to one hundred clerks sixty-four hours of continuous ses¬ 
sion to canvass the vote cast at one primary. Taking into consider¬ 
ation the fact that a separate ballot and not a blanket ballot must 
be published for each party casting 10,000 votes at the last general 
election and that sample ballots must also be provided for each 
party, and that notices of the primary election must be published 
in the newspapers, and nomination petitions and other notices must 
be furnished to county clerks, Secretary of State, and all necessary 
forms for canvassing the ballot, certifying nominations, and mak¬ 
ing returns must be printed at public expense, that in most districts 
polling places must be rented, it is, we think, a conservative state¬ 
ment that the average cost to each election district will be not less 
than seventy-five dollars, or approximately $350,000 for the entire 
State. The Committee would be glad to be furnished with actual 


211 


data, but in arriving at this estimate it has also compared the 
expense in other States where similar primary elections have been 
held. A single primary in the city of Philadelphia cojsts the city 
approximately $100,000, and the election officers are paid only 
half fees. At the primary held on the twenty-second of January 
last forty tons of paper were used for primary ballots alone. 

While the item of public expense, if reasonable, ought not 
to be considered if there are large compensating advantages in 
the operation of this system, nevertheless we think the public 
should be informed so as to take this matter into consideration, 
before enacting into a law a system which adds a considerable 
amount to the moneys necessary to be raised by taxation, which 
expense is mostly borne by political organizations or voluntarily 
contributed by its members. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

As before stated, direct nomination schemes made mandatory 
by law, in other than small territories, are still in an experimental 
stage. There is a wide diversity of opinion among patriotic and 
well-meaning citizens as to their desirability as a means of select¬ 
ing candidates for elective offices. 

It cannot be said with truthfulness that only the “ bosses ” or 
machine politicians oppose the system, nor can it be asserted with 
confidence that only idealists or opportunists, who are willing to 
advocate anything that seems for the moment to meet with popular 
favor, are its friends. 

The investigation of this Committee convinces it that no political 
movement in recent years has so excited the public mind, has 
aroused so much animosity, has split national parties into such 
bitterly opposing factions, as has the agitation for and the operation 
of direct nomination systems in the several northern States which 
are trying the experiment. 

The people have the right and should exercise it of selecting 
their own candidates for public places, and by many any plan 
which promises to accomplish this desired result, is welcomed and 
accepted without question, whether theoretically defensible or not. 

In all direct nomination systems the disappointment comes when 


212 


the voter, in the exercise of the privilege he has sought, enters the 
election booth upon primary day, demands the ticket of his party 
and finds, that instead of selecting his own candidates, he must 
choose between two or three or a large number of men, who have 
simply nominated themselves by petition circulated either by the 
candidate or by some one employed in his behalf. 

The universal practice in all direct primary States, is for the 
candidate to employ some one to circulate a petition in his behalf, 
and such petition is of little value as an expression of the senti¬ 
ment of its signers, as has been recently demonstrated in the 
mayoralty contest in Boston. One candidate had upwards of five 
thousand signatures to his petition and received less than seven 
hundred votes at the election. Another candidate had upwards of 
five thousand names to his petition and received less than eighteen 
hundred votes at the election. 

So far, in the history of primary legislation, there is a great 
lack of uniformity in the different States. The question is often 
asked why it is, if those laws operate so badly in other States that 
they are not repealed. An examination of the history of these laws 
will disclose the fact that but one, two, or three trials in nearly 
every State is all that have been had under the system; the advo¬ 
cates of the law are attempting to amend it at each successive ses¬ 
sion of the Legislature, in many cases the amendments being of 
the most radical character. 

The above question may be answered by asking another: If 
direct nomination laws accomplish such good results, why is it 
that in these States that have not adopted the State-wide direct 
primary but have primaries for county and district offices, there 
is no agitation to extend the system beyond the localities in which 
it was first operated ? 

The city of Boston for nomination of its municipal officers has 
used direct nominations for nine years or more and has given the 
system a very thorough trial. Its best citizens have concluded 
that it is vicious in its results and by legislative enactment and 
vote of the people, have abolished the direct primary for municipal 
officers. 

It is true that many other States have adopted direct primary 
laws more or less extensive, and we are cited to this fact as one 


213 


of the reasons why this State should enact a system of State-wide 
direct nominations. The Committee does not concede the force 
of such argument. 

It is also true that many of these States have adopted a Bank 
Guarantee Law, have lax divorce laws, and the State which has 
had a State-wide direct nomination system the longest, Oregon, has 
also included the Initiative, Referendum and Recall in its local 
system. Many southern States have adopted constitutional 
amendments designed to prevent the colored population from exer¬ 
cising the franchise. Conditions in the middle west and in the 
far west are very different from conditions in a State like Hew 
York, with more than one-half of its population located within 
the bounds of one city, in which is a very large foreign born popu¬ 
lation, many of whom who are naturalized citizens, but who cannot 
read or write the English language. The same condition exists in 
every city of the State. 

It is far easier to put upon the statute hooks a had law than to 
get rid of it when once enacted. 

While it must he conceded that political conditions in the State 
and party control and management are not all that is to he desired, 
and that many just complaints have been made as to party man¬ 
agement and the conduct of nominating machinery, the Commit¬ 
tee is nevertheless convinced, from its observation of political con¬ 
ditions of the several States visited, in the middle west particularly, 
that no such reason exists here as in other States for so revolu¬ 
tionary a procedure as to abolish the representative system, which 
has been in vogue since we became a State, and substitute therefor 
a direct system of nominating candidates for public office. In 
very few localities where now are direct primary laws was there 
any previous statutory control or regulation of caucuses and con¬ 
ventions. Corruption and bribery in all forms of dishonest 
methods were commonly resorted to. Ho attempt was made, 
except in a few localities, to regulate party machinery by statute. 
The enactment of direct nomination laws, however, has nof 
remedied, but has rather aggravated, the evils that existed unde: 
the convention system. 

Candidates for public offices ordinarily find it necessary to 
expend large sums of money to further their canvas before the 


214 


primary, and all the evidence received tended to indicate that 
these expenses were increased several fold under the direct system. 
Not only that, but many men of slender means were tempted to 
enter the political arena and when once in, found the necessities 
so great and the temptations so many in a bitter contest between 
members of the same party, that they became financially and 
morally ruined. 

Few men who are at all modest are willing to enter into such a 
contest for political honor. The system has disorganized and is 
disorganizing the majority party by building up factions that are 
much more bitterly opposed to each other than are national par 
ties, which may be contending for supremacy by advocating dif¬ 
ferent principles of government or methods of administration; and 
minority parties having no contests for nomination are taking part 
in the contests in the dominant party, which will ultimately result 
in their political extinction. 

Party enrollment a year in advance of the primary is un¬ 
doubtedly the best method of preventing the raiding of one party’s 
primary by members of another, but it will not overcome the evil 
nor will it relieve the system of its essential difficulties. 

It is true that a larger percentage of voters of majority parties 
frequently participate in the legalized direct primary, but the com¬ 
plaint is general also that the intelligent business men of the com¬ 
munity take but little interest in its contests and the general at¬ 
tendance is due entirely to the personal activity of so many candi¬ 
dates, who, by the expenditure of large sums of money, by personal 
solicitation and through the paid advertisements of the press and 
its appeals, induce voters to enter the primary. 

DEMAND FOR PRIMARY REFORM. 

That there is widespread and real demand for primary reform 
cannot be denied. It should be assumed that all patriotic citizens 
are desirous of accomplishing in legislation the very best thing 
that can be accomplished for the Empire State. The question 
should be decided upon its merits. 

It should be remembered that there are at least two principal 
political parties in this State and whatever legislation is enacted 
should be for all rather than for the control of the dominant party. 


215 


The argument most frequently heard in favor of a system of 
direct nominations is that it interests many more voters than the 
caucus and convention system. This is true only when there are 
contests at the primary election and not at the caucus; the con¬ 
verse of the proposition is also true; when there is no contest for 
nomination at the primary, it is a mere formality. It must not be 
forgotten that the minority party only in very rare instances has 
any contest at the primary, and the result is that frequently not 
five per cent, of the majority party’s vote is cast. 

If this system is an educational one, as is claimed, it leaves out 
of consideration the education of the minority party, which always 
selects its candidates by party agreement, places them upon the 
primary ticket and then sits quietly by and enjoys the factional 
fights engendered in the majority party, or enters into its pri¬ 
maries because of the solicitation of friends, or to help nominate 
weak candidates, who can he defeated at the election. 

In Hew York city, there would he hut few, if any, contests in 
the Republican party except in districts where dominant. Fusion, 
which has sometimes proven so desirable, it seems to us, would he 
very improbable under a direct primary. Outside of Hew York 
city, there would be few contests in the Democratic party, and 
the primary for them would be a needless formality and a useless 
expense. 

If a State-wide Direct Homination Law, or any direct nomina¬ 
tion law, is of doubtful propriety, it should not be enacted; it 
should not be tried simply as an experiment. The State cannot 
afford to experiment with measures of this character. It can bet¬ 
ter afford to await the results of the experiments in other States, 
and in the meantime seek to perfect our representative system by 
statutory control. 

Many eminent men have represented the people of this 
State in prominent positions, all of whom have been selected by 
the representative system. The government has succeeded by this 
system, and if it cannot succeed as a representative Republican 
government and thereby effectually secure equal rights to all, it 
cannot succeed at all. 


216 


The demand for primary reform should be met with such legis¬ 
lation as will accomplish a real reform, and it is the judgment of 
the Committee that such primary reform should be enacted as will 
make the representative system more nearly representative, as will 
enable every citizen to secure the benefits of participation in poli¬ 
tical affairs, and as will also secure the best men for the public 
service. 

In nearly all towns and villages of the State, we now have direct 
nominations for local offices, and it is very doubtful if the system 
can be extended beyond such districts. The continuance of the 
“ town meeting ” in such localities is, it seems to us, very desir¬ 
able. It invites men, who are acquainted with each other, to get 
together and discuss their local affairs and select their local officers, 
and no system of regulated primary with official ballot can pos¬ 
sibly accomplish for such localities as much as can be accomplished 
under the old town meeting method. 

More essential than a State-wide direct nomination system is the 
reform now being agitated for a “ short ballot/’ from which will be 
eliruinated purely administrative officers and offices requiring tech¬ 
nical and professional skill. If a system of direct nominations is 
ever to be adopted in this State, and if the Constitution shall be so 
amended as to provide for the so-called “ short ballot,” it will be 
the part of wisdom and good statesmanship to let the former fol¬ 
low the latter so-called reform. The tendency, however, in the 
direct primary States is to increase rather than limit the number 
of elective offices, the cry of those who seek to get into office being 
that the people should choose all of their public servants. With so 
many elective offices as there are now in this State, it must be 
conceded by all thinking men that it is physically impossible for 
the average voter to make any intelligent discrimination in the 
selection of candidates. The very fact that there is an agitation 
for a “ short ballot ” is in and of itself proof that men, who are 
thinking along these lines, nre convinced that the voters at the 
election cannot wisely select so many officers as now are in the 
elective list. ITow then can they select from so many candidates 
before the primary? 


217 


In view, therefore, of the evidence received by the Committe* 
and after a most careful consideration of this important subject 
we respectfully recommend: 

First .—That a uniform primary day, not earlier than Septem¬ 
ber first, except in presidential years, when it shall not be earlier 
than April first, be established throughout the State. 

Second .—That a joint primary election for all parties be held 
at the regular voting places; be presided over by the regular elec¬ 
tion officers; be kept open not less than five hours, and governed 
by all the provisions of the Election Law relating to election day 
so far as the same may be applicable. 

Third .—That all political parties, recognized as such by the 
General Election Law, be subject to the law. 

Fourth .—That there be an enrollment of party voters through¬ 
out the State; such enrollment to be made at the time of registra¬ 
tion where personal registration is required, and on the day of 
general election or on registration day, where personal registra¬ 
tion is not required. 

Fifth .—That an official primary ballot be printed for each party 
at public expense, upon which shall be placed the names of dele¬ 
gates to all conventions, appropriately designated and so arranged 
that the party voter may vote for groups of delegates, or for any of 
the delegates according to his choice, in other words, a u straight ” 
or “ split ” ticket. 

Sixth .—That party, county, town and ward committeemen be 
elected by a direct vote at the primary. 

Seventh .—That the names of all candidates for delegates to con¬ 
ventions and committeemen be filed with appropriate officers a 
reasonable length of time before primary day. 

Eighth .—That all so-called intermediate conventions for elect¬ 
ing of delegates to other conventions be abolished. 

Ninth .—That the date for holding political conventions after 
said primary day be fixed by statute and the procedure therein 
be also governed by law; that all delegates elected to sit in con- 


218 


vention and armed with a certificate issued by the custodian of 
the primary records to that effect shall he secure in their seats; 
that contesting delegations be heard by a Justice of the Supreme 
Court, or county judge of the county in which the convention is 
held. 

Tenth .—That all voting in conventions by ballot be abolished, 
and that upon call of the roll each delegate he required to express 
openly his choice with respect to the various nominations, but 
State conventions may vote by counties if no objection is made in 
the convention. 

Eleventh .—-That the number of delegates to the several conven¬ 
tions he fixed by party rule, and that the unit of representation 
for various party committees he also determined by party regula¬ 
tion. 

Twelfth .—That the law relating to corrupt practices at elec¬ 
tions he amended so as to include the primary election. 

A bill embodying the foregoing recommendations of the Com¬ 
mittee will be presented herewith. 

The resolution appointing the Committee is not broad enough 
to clothe it with authority to recommend the adoption of a con¬ 
current resolution providing for the submission to popular vote 
of an amendment to the Constitution, eliminating from the elec¬ 
tive system offices that are purely administrative or require techni¬ 
cal skill, but it seems to us that the consideration of this subject 
is closely allied with the consideration of the subject of primary 
elections, and that it is worthy of the careful consideration of the 
Legislature. 

The Committee and those associated with it entered upon the 
prosecution of their work with the sole desire to accomplish needed 
reforms in nomination methods and in election laws in the interest 
of the people of the State. 

They believe that it will be unwise for the present, at least, to 
depart from the historic representative system, under which the 
political affairs of the State have been so long administered, and 
it is confidently believed that the measures proposed will provide 


219 


adequate remedy for conditions in our political life and activity 
which have become unsatisfactory, and the proposed primary 
reforms will accomplish the highest object of all political machi¬ 
nery— the selection of competent, conscientious, patriotic and 
faithful public servants for the administration of the affairs of 
the State. 

Respectfully submitted by the Committee. 

Dated at Albany, New York, February 16, 1910. 

On the part of the Senate: 

George L. Meade, Chairman 
James A. Emerson 

On the part of the Assembly: 

Jesse S. Phillips, Vice-Chairman 

Robert S. Conklin 

Frank L. Howard 

Julian Scott 

James E. Fay 















INDEX. 


Page. 

Joint Resolution of Senate and Assembly. 3 

States Investigated. 

Illinois. 147 

Witnesses: 

Ayer, Frank D. 156 

Cole, George A. 151 

Dunne, Edward F. 152 

McGoorty, John P. 153 

Rush, G. Fred... 150 

Rinaker, Lewis. 159 

Sliurtleff, Edward D. 156 

Sikes, George C. 151 

Struckmann, W. S. 155 

Observations. 163 

Indiana. 166 

Witnesses: 

Bennett, Henry W. 172 

Bross, Ernest. 173, 174 

Clawson, M. L. 169 

Dailey, Thomas A. 169 

Dunn, Jacob Pratt. 169 

Hawkins, Gaylord . 172 

Howland, Louis . 172 

Holtsman, John J. 172 

Klausmann, Henry W. 169 

Ketcham, William A. 172 

Moore, William F. 172 

Newman, Omer U. 172 

Pickens, William A. 169 


[ 221 ] 





























222 


Indiana — Continued: 

W i tnesses — C ontinued: page. 

Price, Henry C. 172 

Rothschild, Leopold G. 172 

Schmuck, Adolph. 172 

Seyfried, Henry. 169 

Stahlnecker, Frank D. 173 

Stilz, Charles B. 169 

Wishard, Albert W. 172 

Observations. 174 

Iowa. 82 

Witnesses: 

Davis, James C. 90 

Eaton, W. L. 92 

Finkbine, Charles A. 88 

Foster, Sydney. 90 

Fullerton, Robert. 89 

Hayward, W. C. 91 

Ingham, Harvey. 87 

Jewett, Mr. 90 

Powell, J. L. 88 

Swan, A. W. 92 

Weaver, James B. 89 

Young, LaFayette . 86 

Observations. 93 

Kansas. 65 

Witnesses: 

Cain, A. 76 

Denton, C. E. 68, 76 

Dolley, J. H. 79 

Drenning, Frank G. 80 

Howes, C. 70 

Leland, Cyrus . 79 

Mulvane, D. M. 76 

Stubbs, W. R. 77 

Observations. 80 


































223 


Massachusetts. 

Witnesses: 

Adams, Charles T. . . . 

Bishop, Mr.. 

Boynton, Herbert H. , 

Eliot, Charles W. 

Garcelon, William F. , 

Gay, Richard L.. 

Harrington, Arthur . 

Luce, Robert. 

Matthews, Nathan F. 
Murray, William F. . 
Ready, Michael J. . . 

Shaw, David B. 

Spaulding, Thorndyke 
Sullivan, John A. . . . 
Vahey, James H. . . . 
Observations . 


Page. 


. .. 19 

. . . 19 

5 

. . . 10 
. . . 20 
. . . 18 
. . . 16 
. . . 11 
. . . 22 
12, 18 
. . . 18 
. . . 14 

. . . 27 

. . . 25 

. . . 15 

. . . 28 


Michigan. 176 

Witnesses: 

Campbell, Henry M. 185 

Halley, P. J. M. 179 

Joslyn, Charles D. 187 

Murfin, James 0. 181 

Schmalzriedt, Fred R. 188 

Observations . 189 

Minnesota . 95 

Witnesses: 

Eustis, W. W. 99 

Halbert, Hugh T. 97 

Heffelfinger, W. W. 96 

Iverson, S. G. 105 

Jones, S. P. 101 

Kring, John E. 103 

Larsen, J. A. 104 

Nolan, W. J... 104 

Schmall, Julius . 98 

Observations . 106 





































224 

Page. 

New York. 195 

Witnesses: 

Adam, James N. 200 

Beach, L. H. 202 

Binkerd, Robert S. 207 

Bull, Henry A. 197 

Butterfield, H. D. 199 

Dos Passos, John R. 209 

Eliot, Charles. 288 

Emerson, George D. 196 

Ford, Henry Jones. 205 

Goodnow, Frank J. 206 

Ivins, William M. 203 

Kirby, Thomas E. 202 

Reed, H. T. 202 

Stockton, Lewis . 200 

Selden, William B. 208 

Schurman, Jacob Gould. 209 

Signor, Isaac S. 201 

Smith, John J. 200 

Thayer, Wallace. 199 

Tanner, Spencer. 202 

Wadhams, William H. 204 

Wilcox, Ansley. 197 

Observations. 211 

Pennsylvania . 30 

Witnesses: 

Brennan, William J. 52 

Chase, Howard A. 38 

Coleman, W. H. 61 

Edmunds, Franklin S. 41 

Fow, John LI. 40 

Gorman, Frank J. 34 

Hugentugler, E. S.. . 51 

Lewis, Samuel S. 49 

Loser, William L... 48 

Magee, William A. 58 





































225 


Pennsylvania — Continued: 

W i tnesses — Coni inued: page. 

McClatchey, W. S. 56 

Moore, A. P. 58 

Niles, H. C. 52 

Oves, H. C. 46 

Scattergood, J. Ilenry. 34 

Sheatz, State Treasurer. 50 

Shern, Daniel J. 42 

Smith, Lee S. 56 

Stevenson, W. H. 62 

Weist, Fred. 51 

Williams, Talcot. 45 

Observations . 63 

Wisconsin . 108 

Witnesses: 

Aylward, J. A. 110 

Biffel, J. M. 135 

Clancey, John M. 113 

Cochems, Henry L. 141 

Donovan, J. F.. 124 

Eckern, H. L. 131 

Estabrook, C. E. 125 

Fairchild, Edward T. 120 

Hinkel, Edward. 123 

Hoyt, Frank M. 121 

Lush, Charles J. Ill 

McGovern, Francis E. 138 

Melms, E. T.. 137 

Meyer, Ernest C. 114 

Philip, Emanuel L. 126 

Scofield, Edward . 136 

Whitehead, John M. Ill 

Observations . 143 

Primary Laws (Direct) in States other than those visited. . .190 

California . 190 

Missouri . 190 



































226 


Primary Laws — Continued: page. 

Nebraska. 191 

New Jersey.... 191 

North Dakota . 192 

Ohio . 192 

Oklahoma . 192 

Oregon. 192 

South Dakota . 193 

Washington. 193 

General Observations. 211 

Demand for Primary Reform. 214 

Recommendations. 217 


IE My ’12 







































































